The Leftist losing streak at the US Supreme Court continued last week, much to the consternation of Leftists used to getting their way through judicial fiat. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court ruled the government (and any extensions of it under current, and quite wrong, interpretations) could not prevent an individual from personal prayer. To anyone who can read the First Amendment, this was a simple case to decide.
To the Left, it was a violation of the Constitution, more specifically the separation of church and state. Granted, we may have covered this topic before, but the fact the Left continues to bring it up tells me they didn’t learn the first time. So, strap in, kids. We’ve gotta take another swing at this.
separation of church and state
What the Left thinks it means – religious matters have no business in government matters
What it really means – the government can’t establish an official religion
For as smart as the Left claims to be, they consistently get the Establishment Clause wrong even though it’s pretty clear. Here goes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
There’s more to the First Amendment, but the purposes of this sketch, this section is the relevant part. Notice the first four words, “Congress shall make no law.” Those four words put the Establishment Clause into a specific framework, one where, well, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that meets the specific criterion outlined in the First Amendment.
At least, that’s the way it was until Leftists told us what James Madison wrote isn’t really what he meant. Thanks to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to include any entity that gets federal funds, such as public schools. Although I have yet to see Mrs. Miller’s first grade class draft legislation, I’m willing to entertain this line of logic.
But with one caveat the Left doesn’t want to grant: using the entire Establishment Clause. Remember, under the Left’s thinking, a public school is an extension of the federal government, so praying in schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause also states the government can’t stop someone from exercising his or her religious beliefs, which means public schools aren’t allowed to stop someone from praying.
Checkmate, bitches.
What’s worse, the entire concept of the separation of church and state doesn’t even exist verbatim in the Constitution. Oh, it exists as a concept, but nowhere in there will you find “separation of church and state.” That turn of a phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and, surprise surprise, the Left used to extrapolate a simple concept into a gross misapplication.
And even then, the Left doesn’t apply their own standards equally. I know, I was shocked when I realized this, too! Anyway, the Left has used the separation of church and state primarily against Christians to curtail their religious expressions. These restrictions go from the ridiculous to…well, the more ridiculous. But when it comes to, say, Muslims, those restrictions aren’t even considered. If anything, Leftists will tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to state teaching about Islam in public schools isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state because it’s being done purely as an educational exercise.
But a high school coach quietly praying after a football game without requiring anyone else to join in is a Golden Gate Bridge too far?
No matter how far you follow the Left’s thinking on separation of church and state, it will eventually lead to an intellectual dead end. You know, like “The View.” It’s not without reason, though, and that reason (oddly enough) is an appeal to emotion. The Left wants us to believe any outward show of Christian faith is forcing religion down people’s throats which creates a victim, albeit often an unwitting one. Thanks to the ACLU, people putting up a Nativity scene in a public square is an affront to all religions, so communities either have to dump the Christian imagery (their unstated preference) or allow all religions to put up holiday decorations (a nightmare for city maintenance workers). Because the latter is so labor-intensive (and the ACLU is more sue-happy than an injury lawyer working straight commission), communities opt to forego any religious icons on public property.
And remember, kids, this is all based on an idea that’s not actually in the Constitution itself.
Although the separation of church and state is a no-brainer for Leftists, it actually creates a series of problems. Imagine that! Leftists not thinking ahead! Anyway, if the Left really wants there to be no intermingling of church and state under any circumstances, we’re going to have to remove some laws from the books. Granted, they’re not major crimes like murder or theft, but…oh, wait. Yes they are! It’s hard to deny the religious influence on some of the laws we have, but that doesn’t stop Leftists from doing it or outright ignoring the issue altogether.
Then, there’s the matter of representation. Sure, instituting pure separation of church and state will get rid of Christians, but it will also get rid of…many members of “The Squad.” After all, Islam is a religion, right? So, buh-bye Ilhan Omar! So long Rashida Tlaib! Oh, and let’s not forget government officials who believe in the Jewish faith. Shuffle off to Buffalo, Chuck Schumer! Bid farewell to Bernie Sanders! It would get to the point only atheists would be in office, and given some of the hardcore atheists I’ve seen online, we might be better off governing ourselves.
Even if Leftists aren’t listening to reason, we should encourage them to really push for separation of church and state at every level. You know, just to see their faces as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden will have to resign. In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to know your rights. That makes it easier to fight for them when the time comes and to know when others are trying to undercut them.
And this last part is really fun, too. Leftists expect Christians to shy away from letting other religions celebrate on public grounds. To be fair, there are some Christians like that, but most of us tend to be pretty open to letting other faiths have their time in the sun (especially sun worshipers) because we realize freedom of religion is a two-way street instead of a cul de sac (which is French for “sac of the cul). It doesn’t have to be either-or. In fact, I have four words for any Leftist who demands all religions get equal time in public schools.
Your terms are acceptable.
Category: Justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard some shouting coming from the vicinity of Washington, DC, lately, you might be surprised to learn it wasn’t Leftists this microsecond. With the help of 14 Republican Senators, a new gun control bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will be brought before the Senate for debate and what proponents hope will be passage. That number swelled to 15 when it was brought to a vote, ensuring the bill’s passage and sending it to the House of Representatives for a vote. As you might expect from a government body who can’t balance its/our own checkbook, it’s a mixed bag of good ideas (more funding for mental health in communities) and letting-Eric-Swalwell-write-anti-spying-legislation-level bad ideas.
One of the items in the bill is an idea that Leftists have been promoting for a couple of years now called “red flag laws.” Where does this idea fall on the good-to-Swalwell scale? Let’s find out!
red flag laws
What the Left thinks it means – laws designed to prevent potential shooters from committing mass shootings before they happen
What it really means – the latest in a long line of gun control measures destined to fail
Without going too far into the weeds with terminology, here are the basics behind red flag laws. If a gun owner takes actions that suggest he or she will harm himself/herself or others, family members and/or law enforcement can ask a judge to intervene and prohibit the gun owner from accessing his/her guns. This is meant to be a temporary measure so the gun owner can get the help he/she needs to deal with the issues that raised the red flags in the first place. Surely this is a good idea, right?
Take a drive over to the road to Hell and let me know what you find.
Aside from the obvious “Minority Report” vibe, there are more than a few things wrong with red flag laws. The biggest issue is the fact just about anything can be seen as a trigger (see what I did there?) to raise red flags. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for guns, that can be a red flag. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for yoga, that can’t be a red flag, but it may certainly put your Man Card in jeopardy. That applies to you, too, ladies.
If anything can be a red flag, than everything can be, which creates an environment where a gun owner who has not committed a crime is automatically assumed to be the next mass shooter with zero hard evidence. Maybe the gun owner was trying to do comparison shopping for his or her next purchase and decided to look up gun reviews online. Or maybe he/she had a question about legal modifications for a gun or rifle he/she already owned. To the Left, these are red flags that can cause the legal ball a-rollin’.
And that’s where things get really messy, legally. The concerned family member or law enforcement officer goes to a judge to issue a temporary injunction on the basis of public safety. Oh, I forgot to mention this tiny detail: the gun owner doesn’t even need to be at the hearing for the injunction to be approved.
Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t there something about the accused being able to face his accusers in some document that’s fairly important to Americans? Well, there is the Sixth Amendment that deals with criminal trials requiring a swift trial before a jury of one’s peers, so that doesn’t necessarily apply here. However, there are several good arguments to be made with the Seventh and Eighth Amendments that would apply. The Seventh secures the right to a jury trial “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…” (which would cover pretty much all firearms, especially with inflation these days, amirite) and the Eight states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Although the Sixth Amendment argument is more emotionally compelling, the stronger case is made with the Seventh and Eight Amendments in my opinion.
You can quit laughing now.
Still, the fact a gun owner can have his/her guns taken by a judge, even temporarily, without an opportunity to offer a defense isn’t a good look. It’s made worse by the idea there are some judges on various benches who would rubber-stamp any possible red flag as legitimate. Subscribe to the wrong political ideology, express your freedoms in a way someone else doesn’t like, take your Starbucks without whipped cream and sprinkles, order the wrong color wine with your meal, the possibilities are endless. And they’re also very stupid and easy to abuse. All it takes is one pissed-off ex who carries a grudge and a pro-gun control judge to get your property taken from you without recourse, all without you committing a criminal or civil infraction.
All in the name of public safety. Preemptive public safety, that is.
Or at least that’s what fans of red flag laws will tell you. How are they doing in practice? Welllllll…that’s a bit of a hard one to answer. Currently there are 19 states with red flag laws in place, as well as the District of Columbia. As of this writing, the jury is still out on whether red flag laws are effective in dealing with potential mass shootings, which makes it hard to make the argument they work. After all, in order to confirm the effectiveness of said laws, the shooter would almost have to admit he or she was dissuaded from shooting people because of the red flag laws. And last time I checked, I don’t think that’s happened yet, if ever. However, red flag laws have had a definite impact on…suicide attempts, which represent a significant portion of annual gun deaths. Although this is a good thing, it’s not evidence of the laws’ effectiveness against mass shootings.
By the way, Illinois has red flag laws in place, but they still have several shootings every weekend. Why, it’s almost as if…people who are bound and determined to ignore the law will…ignore the law! In some cases, a desire to skirt the law makes lawbreakers creative. Right now there are any number of ways to avoid red flag laws altogether, including buying black market guns or hiding existing guns well in advance so they wouldn’t be confiscated. No matter how different red flag laws are from previous gun laws, they will invariably end in failure and fatalities.
Which is precisely what they’re intended to do.
Government isn’t in the problem-solving business because a) they don’t know how, and b) solving problems leads to less power and money going to politicians. Politicians need there to be mass shootings to justify power grabs disguised as long-overdue gun safety measures. But with each law that gets passed, we get further away from actual safety and personal freedom.
And red flag laws are waaaaaaaaay off in Leftist field, which is just down the road from Totalitarianville on the bad side of town.
All is not lost, however. Oklahoma actually has an anti-red flag law on the books, which is a step in the right direction. Any law that forces law-abiding citizens to compromise basic Constitutional rights on the promise of safety without a guarantee of it needs to be counteracted within the system of government. Even so, we cannot rely on the courts for favorable rulings, especially when you consider there will be a sitting Supreme Court Justice who couldn’t define what a woman is in spite of being one. If you hear of a politician pushing for red flag laws where you live, speak up and challenge the idea.
And if you’re in a state where any of the 15 Republican Senators who voted to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, give them hell for not standing up for Constitutional rights.
And you can tell them I sent you.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The past seven days has been rift with excitement, high hopes, and general giddiness from the Left because of one group of imbeciles…I mean Congresscritters: the January 6th Committee. After two long and expensive years, we are finally going to get to the truth about former President Donald Trump and the insurrection that brought this country to its knees!
At least, that’s what we’re being told. And we know Leftists would never lie or get people’s hopes up for no reason. That reminds me, has anyone seen Robert Mueller lately?
While we wait for the aftermath of the committee’s prime-time extravaganza, let’s see if we can’t pull off a Carnac the Magnificent performance by looking at the committee as a whole.
the January 6th Committee
What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan effort to hold Donald Trump and his followers accountable for trying to overthrow the government
What it really means – a waste of time and money to get back at Donald Trump and his followers for winning the 2016 election
If there’s one thing the government knows how to do, it’s how to waste money (although, taking away our rights through pointless regulation is a close second). One of the ways they do this, or both for that matter, is through creating special committees to investigate one issue or another. And if it’s a hot button issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that isn’t already spoken for by the IRS that someone in Washington will say, “You know, we should form a committee to investigate why dogs lift their legs to pee.”
I didn’t say they were good hot button issues.
In the aftermath of the “insurrection” on January 6th, Leftists came up with the idea to investigate why it happened and who was responsible for it. Of course, they already “knew” Donald Trump was involved because…well, Donald Trump. So, like they do with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever buzzword is popular with the Green New Deal crowd this microsecond, they worked backwards in the hopes they would find something that would produce the necessary linkage between Trump and the events of January 6th.
And after almost a year of public statements, committee meetings, and promises to bring people to justice, the January 6th Committee has…a TV special. Not the good kind like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or “Frank Zappa’s Polka-Palooza,” either. We’re talking “Al Gore Reads War and Peace Live” levels of crapitude. Listen, nothing says “this is not a serious bunch of folks” like getting a TV producer to help make the message understandable and appealing to the general public. Hell, most of the public today doesn’t even watch network TV for the same reason they don’t take a drink out of the toilets at Chipotle: they’re full of shit.
Much like the politicians comprising the committee, appropriately enough. Looking at their roster there is a who-cares of political operatives, puffed up egos, and useful idiots. And that’s just Adam Schiff, the House Democrat partially responsible for the dreadful first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Oh, and I forgot to mention he leaks more than a saggy diaper.
But he’s not the only subpar superstar here. There’s also Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat partially responsible for the even worse second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (I’m sensing a pattern here.) The other House Democrats on board aren’t much better, ranging from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (not a bad get, to be fair) to someone whose main accomplishment to date has been…being friends with Nancy Pelosi.
But don’t think the Democrats are the only ones having fun picking committee members! They have two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to give the illusion of bipartisanship without sacrificing any of the committee’s lack of reputation and gravitas. Yes, I know most House Republicans refused to assist with this clown show…I mean committee, but that’s not without reason. For one, the members House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested were shot down by House Democrats because, and I’m paraphrasing here, they didn’t want conspirators to the crime investigating it. More importantly, however, most House Republicans see what Cheney and Kinzinger didn’t: their presence was meant to be a distraction to give the impression the committee was a true bipartisan effort.
This is where I have to step in and clarify a point that often gets misunderstood by Leftists. Not all Leftists play for the blue team. Some Republicans have adopted Leftist thinking and tried to mold it into the main party by any means necessary. The problem is not every Leftist Republican is as overt as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of them like Florida Senator Marco Rubio seem like rock-ribbed Republicans, but would be just fine with Big Daddy Government as long as they are running it. Just look up his changing positions on “common-good conservatism” and tell me he’s not willing to be an ideological switch hitter if the power grab was right.
And now, back to my rant on the January 6th Committee already in progress.
Both Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee to a) give the illusion it’s actually bipartisan, b) give the Left some measure of cover against legitimate complaints as to the committee’s political ends, and c) stick it to Trump Republicans. But it’s this last reason that seems to be the prevailing one. As I mentioned earlier, the January 6th Committee is one big “fuck you” to Donald Trump after he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. We can argue from now until “Firefly” gets a second season about whether it was a good idea to elect Trump, but it cannot be denied the Left has a raging hate-boner for him and the people who support him. While the committee itself has their collective hands on the table, the Department of Justice has been arresting protesters for various crimes, some legit, most bullshit, and have been keeping them in custody indefinitely. Basically, they’re being treated slightly better than suspected terrorists at Gitmo. And unlike the suspected terrorists, these protesters are American citizens with rights that are being denied by the very government investigating their actions.
All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
This isn’t to say there weren’t some idiots who took things too far because, well, there were. Their crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where I draw the line is calling what the majority of protesters did (peaceably assemble and not cause a fuss) an insurrection as a jumping off point for a mockery of justice wrapped in national security bunting. The entire premise of the January 6th Committee is predicated on the idea there was an actual threat to democracy (which we’ve never had in America) as presented by these protesters.
And that, dear readers, is bullshit.
No matter what the January 6th Committee televised special says or shows, it’s hard to overlook the numerous problems the committee has created merely by taking a bogus narrative and running with it like it was being chased by the defensive secondary of the Los Angeles Rams. But the best is yet to come. After being hyped as the end-all-and-be-all of investigations into the January 6th situation, committee aides are walking it back slightly, saying the TV special is an “opening argument” according to the Washington Post.
Oh, good. There may be more of this shit coming to TV screens near you. Yay?
The biggest problem I have with the committee (I mean aside from the laundry list I’ve already spewed for your reading pleasure) is it doesn’t seem to be serious in its stated mission. The fact Adam Schiff is allowed to get coffee for the committee, let alone have one of the seats on it, should outrage anyone with two brain cells to rub together. In other words, non-Leftists.
And with the committee’s TV special, their lack of seriousness is confirmed. Why in the hell would they need to televise what most people already know if they’ve been following the story? Why has the investigation been solely in one direction while ignoring actions from Democrat leaders that exacerbated the situation? Did members of the federal law enforcement community infiltrate the protest and attempt to incite criminal behavior, as some have shown on video? Is it really an insurrection if no one actually tried to overthrow the government?
These are the questions (among many, many others) the January 6th Committee can’t or won’t answer. This tells me they don’t want to get to the bottom of what happened; the Left needs the overblown “threat” as a weapon to give the impression Trump supporters are threats to America that are on the verge of destroying the country, overthrowing the government, and green-lighting a new “Dukes of Hazzard” series! The horror!
The biggest problem the Left faces with the January 6th Committee is the same one they faced with both impeachment trials, the Mueller Report, and everything else they thought would end the Trump Presidency: they overpromised and underdelivered. Just about everything they threw at Trump was all sizzle and no tofu, and to be fair there wasn’t that much sizzle to begin with. This is merely the latest in a long line of failures that make the “Scary Movie” franchise look good, and that’s a tall order.
Fortunately for us, the Left is more than up to the challenge of finding new ways to disappoint people!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As the Little Dutch Boy can attest, a leak can be a pretty troublesome thing. And that’s exactly what we got this past week thanks to a clerk at the US Supreme Court. Normally, this would be as exciting as watching Al Gore painting grass, but this time the leak involved a certain controversial Supreme Court decision that both the Left and the Right freak out over: Roe v. Wade. While President Pudding Cup tries to figure out the context where someone would row or wade, the rest of us know it as the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Yeah. We’re going there.
Roe v. Wade
What the Left thinks it means – the linchpin of women’s rights, especially personal autonomy
What it really means – a bad ruling made worse by politicians
Before we dive back into the muck, I have to admit I don’t like writing about abortion for a number of reasons. First, it’s a messy moral and ideological issue where there are always going to be more gray areas than black and white ones. Second, it’s such a charged issue that even the slightest bit of nuance, justified or not, can get people pissed off and ready to attack. Finally, there’s not a lot of funny in the termination of a pregnancy. Just ask Michelle Wolf. Having said all of that, the fact Roe v. Wade is back in the headlines and on Leftists’ mind…s(?) overrules any misgivings I have on the subject.
I’ve discussed my feelings on Roe and abortion in general before, but for those of you just joining us, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Roe v. Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision based on provable lies designed to get a certain outcome the dishonest lawyers (I know I’m repeating myself) wanted. For that reason (and the whole killing babies thing), I am pro-life, but I also know my opinion means jack shit in the larger context. As much as I hate the notion of a woman getting an abortion, I hate forcing any other human being to live by my moral code just as much. This may make me seem wishy-washy, but it’s where I stand. You don’t have to stand with me, and I won’t hate you for it.
Unless you’re a Cardi B fan. Then, we might have issues.
Just kidding!
To bring everything back to the current day, the aforementioned leak suggests the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made Leftists scream more than that one protestor did at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Since the leak became public, Leftists have been going from depressed to angry to motivated to downright stupid. And that’s just Elizabeth Warren!
To put it mildly, the Left has been overreacting to the point of hyperventilation on Twitter and other social media. It’s going to be the end of abortion as we know it! It’s going to create a Handmaid’s Tale style theocracy where women are merely receptacles without any autonomy! “Hook-up” culture will die out (and I wish I were fucking kidding about this one, but someone actually posted this idea online)! Yet, with all of the sound and fury, there is one fact the Left isn’t talking about: abortion isn’t going away if Roe gets overturned. All that happens is the decision whether abortion is legal will be left to the states, where I feel it should have been left in the first place.
But isn’t abortion favored by a majority of people, according to Leftists? Welllll…that’s one of those murky areas of the abortion issue. Polling data swings back and forth like a pendulum at different points in time. Sometimes, more people favor allowing abortion. Sometimes, more people favor restrictions on abortions. This tells us two things: 1) we are a conflicted nation, and 2) polling data on the topic are absolute shit.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Left is correct about public opinion on abortion. Why wouldn’t they want a 50-state referendum on legalizing abortion? Simple. It’s because they would lose money and power in the process. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Roe is the key to both for Leftists. Since the original decision came down, the federal government has been the only body calling the shots on abortion. The problem is it violates the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to what is specifically granted to it. Anything that falls outside of that specific limitation goes back to the states and/or the people. And guess what Supreme Court decision defies that?
Can you say Roe v. Wade, boys and girls? I knew you could.
Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Leftists because they typically don’t give a shit about states rights, but with Roe…well, let’s just say it proves how little they care about states rights. Roe gives the Left the federal muscle to mandate abortion without having to actually make an argument in favor of the practice, as in the “settled law” approach. With the power to decide going back to the states, the Left will lose the one-size-fits-all-poorly approach and will have to make the argument to all 50 states. With some states like California, you could call it the “Yeah, We Want To Kill Babies In The Womb Bill” and Leftists would line up around the block to vote for it. With other states, like Texas, the argument would be a non-starter. The point is the Left would have to put actual effort into making abortion legal across the country, and given how they tend to be adverse to work…
Along with this, the Left would either have to raise and spend more money or budget existing funds to make the argument. Neither one of these is sustainable for very long because of the way most Leftists behave, but both would have to come to pass if Roe were overturned because Leftists would lose fiscal security that comes with not having to defend abortion to anyone but the faithful. No wonder Leftists are so up in arms…well, not really arms, per se, since they’re not fans of guns and the like, but that’s neither here nor there.
There is one factor the Left might have working in their favor even if Roe v. Wade goes the way of original stories on “The Simpsons.” Society has changed a lot since Roe was first argued and the fact it has repelled so many legal challenges over the years has made abortion more acceptable, or at least made people less likely to fight it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If you wear down people’s resistance enough, even the slightest push back will net the desired outcome.
This is what the Left is counting on as they try to codify abortion rights via legislation. Although I can’t say I’m a fan of the desired outcome, I can’t find fault with the process, aside from the aforementioned Tenth Amendment conflict. At least the issue will be brought up to a vote, which is a hell of a lot better than having 9 men and women in black robes that hide whether they’re wearing clothing underneath make the call. Instead, that decision will be made by hundreds of men and women who we will not wonder if they’re wearing clothes because very few of us would want to think of them naked.
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns Roe v. Wade, we are still feeling the after-effects of the original decision and will continue to feel them for decades to come. Like eating at Chipotle, but with less vomiting. Where we go from here is anyone’s guess, but we shouldn’t automatically assume the worst on either side of the issue. Even with the most controversial issues, Americans have this amazing ability to adapt to and adopt societal changes given enough time. Hell, we turned polyester leisure suits from fashion statement to garage sale leftovers to popular Halloween costumes in my lifetime, so anything is possible!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard a loud cheer this past week, it was the sound of airline passengers cheering as they found out the federal mandate on wearing masks on airplanes and other forms of public transportation got lifted. Afterwards, however, you heard the sound of Leftists heads exploding as they tried to explain why it was a bad thing to let people choose whether to wear masks.
And they found out the judge in question was a Trump appointee who had been ranked as “not qualified” by the American Bar Association. That, along with the gross mischaracterization of the ruling a “a judge with no medical experience ruling on a medical matter,” became the talking point to discredit the ruling without actually taking the time to, you know, read it. But it does open up an interesting question: why would the ABA’s rating of this judge matter? Turns out, it matters a lot… and not at all.
American Bar Association
What the Left thinks it means – an important group whose ranking of judges is essential to determining their fitness for office
What it really means – a group whose reputation carries more weight than its actual rankings
For as long as I can remember, the ABA was the gold standard when it came to all things judicial. Their opinions could make or break a judge’s career, and often did. Then, over time, their opinions started to lean further left than a runner trying to avoid getting picked off on first. As a result, let’s just say only a handful of people take their rankings seriously, and oddly enough, it’s the same people who consider Paul Krugman a credible economist.
Let’s take the ABA’s ranking of the judge in the federal mask mandate case, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. They took the bold step of ranking her as not qualified because…they felt she hadn’t spent enough time on the bench. Of course, she has the experience of, you know, actually doing the job, so the lack of time on the bench shouldn’t be a disqualifier…except for the ABA and the Leftists who still listen to them.
By contrast, the newest Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earned a “Well Qualified” rating by the ABA. And that was in spite of Justice Brown Jackson not knowing what a woman is because, “I’m not a biologist.”
Granted, we’re dealing with two different levels of judicial positions, but before Leftists can convince you this will excuse the difference, let me point out the fact the standards seem to be higher for the lower courts if the ABA’s analysis is to be taken seriously.
Which, at this point, we really shouldn’t.
Their rating system categorizes each judge as “Well Qualified”, “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified” under the auspices of a 15-member panel. (Don’t let the fact the Ninth Circus…I mean Circuit Court has 2 votes on this panel sway you.) A simple majority is all that is needed for a judge to get one of the three designations, with a super majority of 2/3 needed to add extra prestige to the designation. Nothing like that new judge smell.
Ah, but that’s where the ABA has gone astray. As the link I shared above shows, the ABA’s leftward tilt has created a system where even the most qualified judge with conservative leanings could be left out in the “Not Qualified” hinterlands while unqualified Leftist judges could get a “Well Qualified” rating with little more than a wave of the hand. As you might expect, this has watered down the ABA’s sway over federal judicial nominations more than a mixed drink at a low-end strip club…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
Adding insult to injury, the past two Republican Presidents, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, made the move away from relying on the ABA’s ratings as a determining factor for federal judicial appointments. This was met by Leftists with one part derision, one part hypochondria, and one part partisan screeching. Or as the rest of us call it, Tuesday. Even before Bush and Trump, it was becoming clear the ABA’s blessing meant jack shit to whether a judge would be appointed. That was bound to happen when your ratings are as questionable as roadside sushi stands in Death Valley.
When President Joe Biden made the move back to elevating the ABA to the judge of judges, it was quite the tell, but it was also an inadvertent admission of how its reputation has been sullied by, well, acting like a bunch of dishonest lawyers. (Yes, I know I kinda repeated myself, but still.) Of course, Leftists will blame Trump for the erosion of faith, but it’s a self-inflicted wound; Trump only poured salt, habanero juice, lemon juice, and pure grain alcohol into it.
And the ABA isn’t getting the hint. With a more critical eye towards actual qualifications instead of arbitrary benchmarks, we will get better judicial nominees and appointees instead of “check the box” style candidates whose external “qualifications” hold more weight than their curricula vitae. (That’s Latin for “boring shit academics put on resumes instead of saying they worked as a night stocker at Piggly Wiggly to get through law college.” Didn’t know ancient Rome even had a Piggly Wiggly, did ya?) That’s why I think the ABA needs a procedural tune-up.
First, we need stricter guidelines for the three designation levels. Just because a judge wins a popularity contest doesn’t mean his or her rulings aren’t shit. Here are my suggestions.
– “Not Qualified” should be only for those cases where the judge couldn’t follow basic jurisprudence with a highlighter and the spirit of Earl Warren helping them. In fact, this ranking should be reserved for those who shouldn’t even be allowed in court to defend themselves in a criminal case. Like Congresscritters.
– “Qualified” should mean the nominee has a firm grasp on the law and how it and the Constitution are interpreted. This should not mean he or she would rule a certain way because all the other judges are doing it. The judge has to show his/her work. Doesn’t have to be anything flashy or profound. Just competent, and God knows we need more competent judges on the bench.
– “Well Qualified” should be reserved for the truly exceptional judges, ones who craft well-reasoned decisions and/or showed scholarly traits that helped to advance our understanding of the law and/or Constitution. I’m talking the best of the best. This designation should be rarer than how Count Dracula orders his steak, and it should be backed up with evidence so we know the judge is truly worthy of the designation.
Next, I would make the ABA members who vote on the designations present their cases arguing solely on the merit (or lack thereof) of the candidates themselves. That means they are going to have to do their homework (or have their clerks or interns do it). I feel this can be done through a blind test where a judge’s ruling is laid out, minus any identifying details that would like him or her to the ruling. After study and deliberation, the ABA can then vote for the candidate’s designation. Oh, and if it’s determined one of the members voted purely upon ideological or political grounds instead of the merits, they gone and their vote nullified.
And one final reform. Until the American Bar Association can get its act together and start acting in a non-partisan manner, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. And I’m talking a grain of salt so big it will be open for skiing and snowboarding. Maybe attract mountain climbers and sherpa. That big.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Last week the Biden Administration finally took action on an issue that consumed our nation’s attention. And I, for one, want to give the President credit due him for taking a bold stand against…ghost guns.
Confused? You should be. This was a new one for me, considering the only ghost guns I knew of came from the Ghostbusters and they were fictional characters. However, the Left wants us to believe ghost guns are a real threat to society, which obviously means it is…to Leftists.
ghost guns
What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous variant on the already escalating gun problem in America
What it really means – the inevitable result of gun control laws
To put an actual concept to the term, ghost guns are firearm kits or weapons that can be purchased online without a background check. What makes them so concerning to Leftists is the fact they are untraceable and lack a serial number, so they can’t be traced back to an individual. Although the Left wants to frame this as a public safety issue, there’s a more obvious explanation of why Leftists are freaking out about ghost guns.
Ghost guns avoid Leftist gun control laws and the licensing fees connected to them.
Whenever you come across a Leftist issue like this that doesn’t seem to make much sense to introduce at a particular time (so, basically, any Leftist issue), most likely it’s being brought up because of money, power, or both, since these are the motivating factors behind anything the Left does. Altruism doesn’t enter into the picture unless it’s spending other people’s money to accomplish it. They’re in it for purely prurient reasons.
Case in point: gun control laws.
Have you noticed the number of gun-related deaths in cities and areas with strict gun control laws? Why, it’s almost as though…criminals don’t follow laws or something! But instead of packing it in and realizing they are walking definitions of insanity, Leftists double down (or would it be double-barrel down) on more gun laws, knowing they don’t work as well as they want us to believe. But they do work in generating income and creating a power dynamic that allows the government to dictate to peons…I mean citizens. In some places, a cat can haz cheezburger before even law-abiding citizens can get a gun permit, and it’s even worse in “may issue” states where you can be denied a permit even if you jump through the legal hoops to get one simply because the government says so.
But remember, kids, Republicans are the ones who want to dictate to us how to live our lives because Leftists say so.
It is said necessity is the mother of invention, but being able to piss off Leftists is a pretty good motivator, too. Instead of knuckling under to Leftist demands, people have been figuring out ways to make working firearms and making money off it and keeping the Leftists out of the process altogether. It’s the American Dream as written by the NRA!
By making it more difficult to own firearms, making moves to make it harder and more expensive to get ammunition (which, by the way, is also a DIY project), and doing next to nothing about the proliferation of violent crime, Leftists laid the groundwork for ghost guns to be a thing. Nothing like a self-own to make a Leftist idea go up in flames like the Hindenburg.
Which brings us to another reason the Left introduced the ghost guns issue right now: the Biden Administration has been the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit put on America’s front porch while Kamala Harris rings the doorbell. Between the never-ending Hunter Biden scandals and the numerous bouts of political, economic, and foreign policy incompetence, Joe Biden needed a win. Unfortunately for him, this ain’t it. Most people don’t know even know what a ghost gun is, but the President decided to make it the focal point of a Rose Garden event. It’s like letting Hannah Gadsby headline a comedy show, or the opening of a Blockbuster Video for that matter: those who know are already going to go, but most people won’t and there’s not enough interest to attract them.
I know this is going to be a risky prediction to make, but dammit I really think this one’s going to pan out. Any laws or regulations concerning ghost guns is going to fail. I’m no Nostradamus, but given the track record of gun control laws and their failure to address gun violence in any meaningful way, I’m confident this will end the same way and for the same reason: Leftists don’t think far enough ahead to see the fatal flaws of their ideas. Which makes it better for us because a) it lays the groundwork for those ideas to be challenged and eventually defeated, b) it gives us ongoing topics for blog posts, and c) it provides endless opportunities for humor!
Unlike Hannah Gadsby.
Leftist Lexicon W0rd of the Week
If you want to make a simple concept more complex than it needs to be, leave if to the Left. This past week saw an example of this fall in our respective laps, and it involves a woman. Or, more specifically, what a woman is. Now, most people can figure it out, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying to cast doubt on the answer.
Whether it’s a NCAA woman’s swimming champion sporting a penis, proclamations about trans women getting pregnant in spite of lacking the necessary parts, or a Supreme Court nominee who seems to think you need a biologist to know what a woman is (while being a woman herself), the Left has made being a woman a lot more difficult.
woman
What the Left thinks it means – anybody who identifies as a woman
What it really means – an adult biological female
Now, the Left will tell us my definition doesn’t include trans women and, thus, I’m a transphobe. Of course, if they knew me, they would know a) I don’t hate trans people, b) I don’t fucking care what they call me because c) I trust week-old convenience store sushi more than the Left’s ability to accurately judge a situation. And, to put it mildly, they’ve completely misread the situation with women.
For decades, women flocked to the Left for various reasons, including their desire to kill unborn children at will. And that worked well…until the Left got invested in trans rights. Now, Leftists are showing how much they actually cared about women’s issues: not a hell of a lot.
The Left believe the ends justify the means. If that means they have to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, they’ll do it, and they’ve done it with women’s issues. They’ll throw out vague threats (Republicans are going to outlaw abortions if they get back into power), nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless slogans (childcare is infrastructure), and ideas with no basis in reality (the gender pay gap) to keep women voting for Leftists. Yet, in spite of promising to fight the patriarchy, nothing of substance gets done. Part of this is because Leftists are mostly incompetent, but the main reason is because they need problems to continue for them to keep votes coming in for Leftist candidates. Blather, rinse, repeat.
Then, trans women came into the scene. Although most are predisposed to vote for Leftists, the Left doesn’t want to take any chances. So, they played around with the language and came up with the idea to consider trans women as actual women. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that troubling, but then trans women started to get involved in women’s sports. And not just succeeding here and there, kids. Absolutely dominating them.
Congratulations, ladies. You lost the War of the Sexes to men, thanks to Leftists.
What’s worse is the Left doesn’t even want to consider the fact their overly gracious definition of women is wrong. They’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). Well, there are a couple of key points these “smart” people have overlooked and to much hilarity.
First off is science. Now, the “party of science” doesn’t want you to consider basic biology to realize there really are two genders, male and female. While the Left pushes the bullshit idea that gender is a social construct put upon babies upon birth, the actual science says just the opposite. In order to be born female, a baby has to have two x chromosomes. Once that happens, nature takes its course and the girl develops as girls tend to do, no doctors designations needed.
Then, there is the numbers game. Right now women make up a little over half of the population. Meanwhile, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Out of a US population of 329.5 million people, that makes a whopping…0.004%. So, Leftists are gambling on pissing off over half of the population just to appease a group that was already inclined to vote with the Left in the first place.
So, how does that ass-fucking feel, ladies? It gets worse, though.
Thanks to the Left’s love of trans women, there are going to have to be new interpretations of existing rules, laws, and regulations. If you’re upset over Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming, just consider the implications for Title IX. For those of you playing along at home, Title IX is designed to prevent sex discrimination at any educational institution that gets federal funding. That’s right, kids. Soon men will be allowed to get Title IX protection merely by identifying as women. They don’t even have to get their…well, hot dogs…removed.
If you’re sensing a pattern here, it’s because there is one. For all of the “progress” being made with trans women, it’s at the expense of women who were born women. Say, isn’t there a term the Left uses for power systems that favor men? Isn’t it called…the Patriarchy? Why, yes, yes it is! Am I saying the Left’s supporting the Patriarchy by going so overboard with the trans woman issue? Why, yes, yes I am!
Maybe it’s me, but sometimes the irony tastes like steak. This is one of those times.
To put it simply, trans women aren’t women. I don’t say this to be mean or hateful; I say it because it’s the truth. There is a lot more about being a woman than just slapping on a skirt and make-up. As conservative commentator and all around good egg Tammy Bruce explained it, women are the sum total of their unique experiences, experiences men don’t have and, thus, can’t shape their lives like these experiences do for women. Although, I do think of the day my mom got me my first bra…unschweiger. Yeah, that’s it!
Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind here is women are different than men. Always have been and always will be. And that’s a good thing! What isn’t so good is the notion women have to take a back seat to trans women in the name of equality, diversity, and tolerance. You ladies have worked far too hard for far too long to gain equal, and in some cases superior, footing in society just to let Leftists toss it all aside for the Lia Thomases of the world. Stand up for yourselves and let the Left know how you feel. Sure, you’ll get pushback and even some harsh rhetoric thrown your way, but it doesn’t matter because of one little detail the Left can’t refute.
You are smarter than a Supreme Court nominee because you don’t even need to be a biologist to know what a woman is!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.
For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”
Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.
protest
What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion
What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion
Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.
Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.
I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.
Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.
Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.
Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”
Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?
The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.
The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.
Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.
Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.
The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.
As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.
In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Once again, the Lexicon Gods came through in a big way this week! There was enough material for two whole installments, but one of those can keep for a while. This week, though, there was one that practically begged me to write about it.
And, no, it’s not the voices in my head. At least, not this time.
The two worst kept secrets in Washington, DC, became public knowledge this week. One involves an old man taking actions in preparation of the impending Republican obliteration of the Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, and the other involves Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer. After days of speculation about whether Justice Breyer was going to retire fueled by the media, he finally came out and confirmed he was, much to the chagrin of the tens and tens of his fans.
As a result, President Joe Biden may get a Supreme Court nominee in the near future. During the 2020 Presidential lock-in…I mean campaign, Biden promised to appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court because…reasons? Leftists are praising the decision and pushing the President to make good on his promise because it will add, and I’m not making this up, “new lived experiences” to the High Court.
Hanging curve ball, meet rhetorical bat.
lived experiences
What the Left thinks it means – cultural insights that are not usually reflected in positions of power
What it really means – a word salad designed to give gravitas to someone just for breathing regularly
Let me cut to the chase here: everyone has lived experiences simply by living. Last time I checked, everybody was different, from genetic code on up. As a result, each life experience will be different due to parenting, environment, social and economic status, and so on. So, to make some people’s lived experiences more valuable than others, especially when it comes to political appointments, is folly.
Which is why the Left keeps doing it.
No matter who the President appoints, there is going to be scrutiny down to the microscopic level. Anything from legal briefs to favorite brand of cheese puffs will be brought up and scandalized by political operatives wanting to take down the nominee. Oh, sure, some will take a hard look at seemingly controversial topics done for the sake of looking smarter than the Senator actually is, but most of the inquiries will come down to “gotcha” moments. That’s why the party that controls the Senate does its best to coach nominees on how to avoid these moments.
In short, give vague, non-specific responses to specific questions, smile a lot, and try to look like you own the place.
Unfortunately, that typically works. In the past few decades, people who could have been good Justices have been scrapped while others who wonder which foot goes into his or her legal briefs first get by without a hitch. In some cases, even clear conflicts of interest aren’t enough to derail the nomination.
Now, what does any of this have to do with “lived experiences”? It’s a tool used to deflect any criticism, legitimate or otherwise, from the nominee in question. Within the “diversity is our strength” crowd, there are two fundamental principles: 1) white males are overrepresented, and 2) the only way to correct this is to overrepresent non-white people.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make sense to me either.
Even if you’re not a white male, the Left will find a way to discount your lived experiences if it’s inconvenient to their cause. Look at how the Left treats Dr. Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Tulsi Gabbard, and too many other people to mention, past and present. For some reason, their lived experiences aren’t valid, while the lived experiences of people like Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Barack Obama are sacrosanct. Then again, maybe the lived experiences of sleeping your way up the political ladder or going to private schools without anyone ever challenging you are vital to this country taking steps in the right direction, but I’m going to need a lot more convincing before I jump on the bandwagon.
And a few stiff drinks.
Now, consider the Left’s support of identity politics as it pertains to lived experiences. What happens if someone self-identifies as a non-white male? They probably didn’t have the same lived experiences as an actual non-white male, but in their minds they have. And unless they want to be hypocritical bigots, they have to accept this identification.
Now imagine if someone like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz did that. The sheer sound of Leftist heads exploding would be epic!
As it the fact lived experiences is about as useless a term as the Left has devised. Not only is it based off the absurd notion one person’s life experiences are somehow superior to others, but it creates a caste system based on it. The fact it’s being used as a bizarre Leftist litmus test for Supreme Court Justices is as unhinged and laughable as you can get. Like Joy Reid, only dumber.
But it’s all to hide any deficiencies in any Leftist darling’s resume when it comes to the actual job of the Supreme Court: to interpret the law and the Constitution. Nothing else. And in the end, as long as whomever is nominated has a grasp on that, I won’t raise too much of a fuss. If she turns out to be someone who couldn’t count to ten with the Bill of Rights as a cheat sheet, then I’ll have problems. And none of it will be related to her background or what life experience she brings to the table. That is ultimately irrelevant, as it should be from the jump. Anyone who says differently is selling something, namely a judge or lawyer who would make Lionel Hutz look like Earl Warren.
And not only is Hutz a horrible lawyer, but he’s a flipping cartoon.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are times when current events bring back policy issues from the past. This week, Roe v Wade was a hot button topic on the Left, mainly because the Left is ginning up fear that it will be repealed by the Supreme Court. On the docket there are two cases that the Left feels will do away with a woman’s right to choose if the High Court rules in a certain way, and with three Trump-era picks on the court, they’re afraid it’s going to be a slam dunk against them.
When you really think about it (and I because I don’t have a life), the Left puts a lot of weight on the Roe decision, but there are a lot of underpinnings that make it far more controversial than it is. And when you’re dealing with anything related to abortion, anything that adds more controversy is bad.
I promise my analysis will get better in this piece.
Roe v Wade
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision essential to ensuring women’s rights
What it really means – a poorly-crafted Supreme Court decision with tragic implications
Before we get started, I know a number of people will dismiss this piece because I’m not a woman. It’s okay because I self-identify as one. Seriously, though, it’s frightfully easy to dismiss male opinions on abortion because of who is giving them. Maybe the Left missed the memo on this, but that’s sexism. After all, it takes two to tango, as it were, and men’s voices should be heard on the subject thanks to the fact men contribute half the chromosomes to make a baby. Until science figures out how to change the dynamic, men and women have just as much of a right to speak on the subject.
Even so, you think I’m going to get a bunch of Leftists silence me? I’m just too much of a jerk to let that happen.
At the heart of the Roe decision is a medical, philosophical, theological, logical, political, and moral question: when does life begin? For Leftists, life begins when the baby comes out of the birth canal and, thus, can be used to vote for Leftist politicians. From a physiological standpoint, life begins when the zygote is formed. Oddly enough, this is one time the Left doesn’t want us to follow the science.
On a related note, I’m going to use “baby” instead of “fetus” for the reason stated above: I’m following the science. When Leftists say it’s not a baby, they’re hard pressed to tell us what it is if not a baby. A muskox? Fairy dust? A perfectly preserved 1956 Chevrolet? So far, the best the Left has been able to come up with is it’s a bundle of cells.
Which, by the way, is technically all humans. including the Pussy Hat Brigade who want to be able to terminate some bundles of cells because…reasons.
Where the Roe decision really gets off the rails more than an Amtrak train being driven by Lindsey Lohan is in the interpretation and application of English common law. Under its direction, children in the womb received life, called quickening, at the first sign of the baby moving. (Good thing they hadn’t invented Taco Bell yet!) In other words, the baby was alive before he or she was born.
Once this point is established, it creates a domino effect on multiple levels, but most importantly in this case legally. However, the lawyers who argued in favor of a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy before birth twisted the story a bit. Instead, they claimed English common law didn’t specify it, which allowed for more flexibility. After all, if the fetus isn’t considered life, it removes a lot of the personal elements from the procedure itself.
Hmmm…I wonder why the Left would lie about English common law when it would advance their political…ohhhhhh! I get it now!
And really, this is utterly predictable, like Rep. Eric Swalwell making an asshat of himself on Twitter. Out of all the things the Left loves to politicize, sexual matters are at the top because, well, they’re immature. As much as they like to pretend they’re more sophisticated than the rest of us, the truth is the Left are like horny teenage boys at a strip club. Because of this, they look at such matters simplistically. You know, for people who claim to know all about nuance, they don’t practice it that much.
This brings us back to Roe. From the Left’s perspective, getting rid of Roe is akin to taking adult women and turning them into chattel without agency or independent thought. And that’s the Left’s gimmick! If Roe gets repealed, it leaves the decision of whether to allow abortion to the states, which takes it out of the federal scope and, thus, forces Leftists to take their loopy arguments to all 50 states. Oh, and it will force them to spend more of their/our money to get what they want. Ultimately, though, it dilutes the Left’s power to affect the change they want. Instead of clinging to a bad ruling like Linus clings to his blanket, they would actually need to do the legwork to get their agenda in place nationwide, and since there are some states who don’t take a liking to abortion, they won’t be able to force compliance with the force of judicial fiat.
Which would be fine if the Left’s talking points were anywhere accurate. According to them, legal abortion is favored by a majority of people polled, but it’s rarely brought up to a public vote. Why? Because putting it up to a vote opens it up for the measure to fail, which also means the talking points would be rendered as null and void as Chris Cuomo’s CNN contract. Talk about adding insult to injury! If you think Leftists are sensitive now, just wait until they get defeated by voters! If they do what they normally do with public referendums that don’t got their way, they will run into a hurdle, namely the fact the USSC overturned Roe. Oops.
The Left has a lot at stake with the two Supreme Court cases involving Roe v Wade, so it’s not hard to imagine they’ll pull out all the stops to win. Yet, what they win has to be balanced against what’s being lost: potential Democrat voters and Leftist foot soldiers. Although there are plenty of young people filling those roles right now, at some point there will be a drop in those numbers, either through aging, changing opinions, or simply just seeing how bat-shit insane the Left has gotten.
It strikes me as funny the Left is doggedly holding onto a Supreme Court ruling that, while flawed, is the key to their destruction (in Minecraft and other places). The longer Roe remains in place, the lower their numbers will eventually get. But to right that ship, they would need to do a 180 on Roe, which they won’t do because it would mean they’ve been wrong for 40+ years and their ego can’t take it.
Even so, as pro-life as I personally am, I have to know where my limits are. I’m not going to force someone to take my position. All I can do is make my opinions known and hope they’re persuasive enough. I urge you to take a hard look at the information that’s out there on both sides regarding Roe v Wade and be willing to do what the Left doesn’t want you to do: ask questions.
And take baths. They hate that!