Row v. Wade Overturned

On Friday, the 24th of June in the Year of Our Lord 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic opinion.

The overturning of the 1973 opinion of Roe v. Wade. Stating that the United States Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to an abortion.

This opinion does not outlaw the practice of abortion. It does return it to the Several States where it rightfully belongs to be legislated.

Abortion was never a right. And the US Supreme Court and lower courts have a long history of implying rights under the Constitution that just aren’t there. There is no right to an abortion.

There is a right to privacy of course. This is protected in the US Constitution. But that doesn’t mean that any person can end the life of another yet to be born child without cause.

What is an exceptable cause? That is for the States to determine. Because the right to Life and due process are protected by the US Constitution.

There maybe some instances where abortion is necessary. This does not diminish the fact that it is ending another life in the womb. It just should never be preformed for trivial reasons.

Of course the idiots on the Left are shouting that this is only the beginning. And think that the High Court will also issue other opinions such as removing the right to vote from women as well.

This absurd and shows the ignorance of those who believe such nonsense. The right to vote is clearly written in the US Constitution. And the High Court cannot simply issue an opinion removing it any more than they can issue an opinion voiding the 2nd Amendment.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After last week’s Lexicon entry about abortion, I wanted to do something in a lighter vein.

So, we’re talking about the filibuster. I know! I’m as excited as you are!

Actually, we do have to go back to the abortion debate for a little while because it plays a role in the discussion, and we have Senator Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren to thank for it. See, the Senate tried to make the abortion protections laid out in Roe v. Wade federal law last week in the form of The Women’s Health Protection Act, but it ran into a little snag: it didn’t have enough votes to bypass a potential filibuster (which is absurd as we’ll find out later). As a result, Chief Running Mouth took to the media to renew her call to eliminate the filibuster.

Hoo boy. We’re going to need Mayflower to help us unpack all of the wrong here.

filibuster

What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated unconstitutional Senate rule that threatens democracy

What it really means – a Senate rule that Leftists will rue eliminating if they get their way

Time for a quick civics lesson. Although we tend to work on a majority rule model here in America, there are some exceptions designed to prevent the majority from totally steamrolling the minority. One such tool is the filibuster, which is when the minority can cobble together at least 60 votes to prevent a bill from going forward. Even the threat of a filibuster can be enough to change how a bill is written or presented.

In today’s hyper-partisan world, that happens less often than David Duke gets invited to the NAACP Spirit Awards.

Since Democrats hold a numerical majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris, they don’t necessarily feel they need to reach across the aisle to get things done, which puts their current opposition to the filibuster into perspective. It also puts their previous use of the filibuster into perspective, since they love to use it when they’re in the minority. If it wasn’t for double standards, Leftists would have no standards at all.

Leftists by their very nature are control freaks (in addition to being other kinds of freaks). They feel they have to rule completely because anything else gives opponents the ability to disagree with them. With enough naysayers, Leftists can’t get done what they want, which is a sin in their eyes akin to killing puppies, destroying the planet, and worst of all…not being a Leftist!

This desire for control has been at the core of a lot of defeats for Senate Democrats, including The Women’s Health Protection Act. Instead of reading the room and coming up with a bill that would get Republican votes, Leftists tried to ram through a bill banking on Republicans to surrender out of fear of public opinion. Wellll…that didn’t happen, and one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, sided with the Republicans to make the vote to move forward with the bill 51-49. And it shouldn’t be overlooked it was the Senate Democrats who forced the vote. Talk about a self-own! On the plus side for Leftists, Senator Kyrsten Sinema voted with the Democrats, so she might be able to get back on their Winter Solstice card lists.

But the failure wasn’t because Senate Democrats fucked up! It was that damn filibuster! And it’s about time to we got rid of that unconstitutional rule that prevents progress!

Not so much.

First, let’s deal with the constitutionality argument. Although it’s true the filibuster doesn’t appear in the Constitution, there is this passage from Article I Section 5 that would apply here:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…

This has been interpreted to mean the House of Representatives and Senate can make their own rules, which means the filibuster is constitutional. You would think someone who taught law might be able to figure that out, but we’re dealing with Elizabeth Warren here. She’s as sharp as a Nerf ball, as anyone who understands her missives on economics an attest.

Or as anyone who understands what a majority is can attest, for that matter. The filibuster literally had very little to do with the failure because, and let me spell it out for the good Senator and any other Leftists who are reading this…the votes weren’t there. You had a threshold and failed to meet it. Those were the rules in place at the time, and you lost. Until you change the Senate rules or amend the Constitution to remove the filibuster as a means of ending debate or altering legislation, those are the rules you have to live by.

Of course, nothing can stop you from bitching about it, even if we didn’t have a First Amendment in place. But can you at least bitch about it intelligently? A tall order, I know, but could you do it for your Uncle Thomas? Please?

Although it’s fashionable to shit on the filibuster, it does serve an important role, even today. Just because one party or the other has a majority doesn’t mean that party is right. The fact the filibuster exists in the Senate is a feature, not a flaw, because the Founding Fathers established the Senate as a more deliberative body. If you want bills written up on the fickle whims of the public, you go to the House. If you want substantive discussions, you go to the Senate.

Well, nobody’s perfect, not even the Founding Fathers.

Even though the filibuster isn’t working well today, it still provides a necessary release valve for impulsive legislation not well thought out and poorly presented. You know, like The Women’s Health Protection Act? (On a side note, how does this bill protect women’s health when statistically the most babies aborted would be female? But I’m not a biologist, so there’s that.)

So, before you Leftists throw out the unborn baby with the bathwater, consider this. Senate Republicans have resisted calls to do away with the filibuster when they’ve been in the minority because they understand it still has value, even when the previous President believed otherwise.

That’s right, Leftists. You now are on the same side as Donald Trump.

As the meme says, congratulations. You just played yourself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past week saw the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing devolve into a monkey dung fight with better suits, but one concept that kept being introduced in between the handfuls of crap being flung was originalist. The Left came up with their own unique (i.e. utterly insane) interpretations of the idea, often pointing to the way women were treated when the Constitution was ratified. In short, the Left wanted ACB to get back in the kitchen, but it’s not sexist when they do it.

Yet with all of the talk on the Left about originalist thinking, few have actually nailed it down. And by few I mean it’s rarer than a Nosferatu burger that a Leftist got it right. So, consider this a teachable moment for the Left.

originalist

What the Left thinks it means – a backwards way of applying the Constitution to legal cases because of cultural changes and the passage of time

What it really means – applying the Constitution as written to legal cases

With the exception of a few Amendments, the Constitution is pretty straightforward as to what the government can and cannot do. As a result, Leftists try to muddy the waters so it’s not as simple as it looks, and since Leftists think they’re the smartest people in the room, they volunteer their expertise to interpret the Constitution (as they interpret it, of course). If someone were to come along and point out the simple concepts the Left tries to misconstrue, that person becomes a threat.

You know, like Amy Coney Barrett.

Whenever the Left sees a threat to their self-imposed intellectual supremacy, they calmly and maturely state their case as to why originalist thinking is dangerous. And if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Gobi Desert I’d like to sell you. I’ll even throw in a free Gobi Dessert with a purchase!

What the Left does with originalists is portray them as out-of-touch, uber-conservative types who don’t understand society changes, so our interpretation of the Constitution has to change. Remember, the Left believes the Constitution is ever-changing, always in flux, and means different things at different times. As much as our personal interpretations of the Constitution can change with time and social perspectives, that doesn’t change what is actually written.

Take one of my personal favorite Amendments, the First Amendment. When making decisions on everything from whether online speech should be regulated to whether a community can have Christmas decorations in public parks, people often overlook the key five words at the very beginning of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law. Thanks to our friends on the Left and their allies in the ACLU, anything that gets government funding is subject to the limitation placed specifically on Congress, and if you disagree or resist, they will sue you. Call me crazy (and I’m sure some of you already do), but I’m curious how a Christmas decoration in a public park equates to an act of our legislative body. Although I’m curious how my mayor voted on Obamacare…

Now, imagine an originalist taking a look at all of the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the ACLU and dismissing them because Congress didn’t act. (So far, it hasn’t happened, but a boy can dream.) Not only would it make the ACLU look like idiots (which happens on any day that ends with “day”), but it would remove the power the Left has to suppress the free expression of religion through subversion of the First Amendment. (Oh, and by ignoring the whole “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” part of the First.)

Even with something as vital and impactful as a Supreme Court decision, the Left is playing political games, mainly because they know they can’t win people’s hearts and minds and need the courts to enact the Left’s agenda via judicial fiat. Of course, the easiest way to win hearts and minds is to…oh, I don’t know…come up with ideas that don’t suck. The originalist nukes this tactic from orbit because he or she understands the limits of the judiciary and will most likely toss out the bad decisions for legislative bodies or, Heaven forbid, the people to decide.

Therein lies the key difference between Leftists and originalists. The Left uses the Constitution as a Swiss Army knife, a tool for every idea developed by and for tools. Originalists use the Constitution as a map to guide an outcome so no one gets screwed in the end. (Unless, of course, you’re into that kind of thing.) This has a lot to do with how well each side understands the Constitution and to what ends. The Leftists have a workable understanding of the letter of the law, but only enough to find or create loopholes. Originalists have a deeper understanding of the words in and concepts behind the Constitution so they can understand the spirit of the law, not just the letter. This knowledge of context makes it easier for the originalists to pick out the wheat from the chaff in the Left’s Constitutional arguments.

Which pisses off the Left to no end.

Although the Left’s opposition to Amy Coney Barrett appears to be based on abortion rights or dismantling the Affordable Care Act, underneath is a deep contempt for her originalist stance and a fear she won’t take any of their monkey dung masquerading as legal and Constitutional concepts. And given some of the questions/rants provided by the Senate Democrats, monkey dung might have been the most substantive things they had against her.

Sorry, We’re Open

To put it mildly, COVID-19 has put a strain on the world and its citizens. Whether it’s dealing with the virus itself, the stress of dealing with a new normal we hadn’t anticipated, having to spend more time inside than Boo Radley, or wondering how we will pay the bills with so many places shut down, we are all on edge. This tension has been heightened by recent actions and reactions from the government and the governed.

Let’s look at Michigan, for example. Governor Gretchen Whitmer has used COVID-19 as a way to shut down some businesses and keep others open under the auspices of what was considered essential. Once news started coming out about what was considered essential (selling lottery tickets) and what wasn’t (being able to buy car seats for children, which is a state requirement in Michigan), people started getting angry, leading to armed, but peaceful, protesters surrounding the state capitol building. Similar acts of civil disobedience also occurred from California to Florida.

The Left tells us the protesters are a public health threat and some have even called them terrorists (usually with the totally non-racist descriptor “white” in front of it). The Right tells us the government is overreaching in an attempt to use COVID-19 as a means to grab up more of our rights with no expectation of giving any of them back, not to mention cripple the economy to give Democrats a better chance of defeating President Donald Trump in November. So, who’s right?

They both are. They’re also both wrong.

This is an uncomfortable position for me as someone who not only sees COVID-19 as a legitimate medical threat, but also sees government overreach as a threat. Trying to reconcile the scientific facts and my libertarian leanings has been harder than Bill Clinton on a Viagra bender at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch after Hillary buys it (and I’m not talking cattle futures). Here’s where my head’s at.

COVID-19 isn’t a seasonal cold, nor a variation on that theme. It’s a virus we haven’t dealt with sufficiently yet, so we’re having to play catch-up. And we’re not doing a great job of it. I am someone in a high-risk category for various health reasons, so I take the warnings very seriously since I have a vested interest in avoiding contracting it. Beyond that, however, I feel a responsibility to my fellow citizens not to spread it if I can help it. It may be uncomfortable and keep me feeling hotter than a ghost pepper, but I wear a mask when I go into stores and other high-traffic areas if only to avoid having to deal with the guilt I’d feel if there was a chance I spread COVID-19 to someone else.

Yet, I cant sit by and agree that every government action is done with the best of intentions. Governor Whitmer alone has been an example of what Leftists do when they’re given limitless power. Other government officials from governors to local politicians have undercut the Constitution under the guise of protecting people. As much as these bureaucratic weasels want us to believe even being out in a public park while practicing social distancing will make COVID-19 spread like wildfire, the fact remains the survival rate is still in the high 90% range. Even if it’s asymptomatic, it’s not a definite death sentence and certainly not if you’re not in a high-risk group. Funny how the self-professed “Party of Science” ignores the actual science here.

Being a small-l libertarian, I have a general rule of thumb: leave me and my rights alone, and I’ll do the same for you. Even with COVID-19, I adhere to that. But with rights and power there are responsibilities, and both sides of the shutdown controversy have forgotten this. Yes, the Constitution says we have the right to peaceably assemble, but with what we don’t know about COVID-19, it’s important we assemble peaceably and safely. And, yes, we have to watch out for our fellow human beings, but enforcing the letter of the law to the point of absurdity isn’t helping anyone get or stay healthy.

The problem is we as a society don’t think on so grand a scale. We are stuck in the moment and what we want at any given time, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. Why else would there be a run on toilet paper when COVID-19 is a respiratory virus? Simple. People didn’t care about anyone but themselves. Although looking out for number one may seem good in the short term, it almost always backfires in the long run. Good luck with your 43 jumbo packs of toilet paper you can’t return. Hope you can find a use for all of it. One, maybe two trips to Chipotle?

So, maybe there is a middle ground to be had, but it’s going to take a lot of work on ourselves and society. You want to really help medical personnel right now? Don’t put yourself in harm’s way if at all possible. Exercise a bit of caution in public, and exercise your freedom of expression to let your elected officials know how you feel. Then, take care of yourselves and look out for others. A sense of community will go much further than armed protests and overbearing laws in ending the COVID-19 shutdowns.