It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!
Tag: us supreme court
The Elephant in the Election
The Republican nomination is now down to just Trump and Haley. Those still running on the fringe don’t have a chance at the nomination with these two still in the race.
Haley may do well in New Hampshire on Tuesday and even in her home state of South Carolina. Once these 2 states are done we should have a clear idea who the Nominee will be from the Republican Party. But if not, there is Super Tuesday when 16 states have their primaries. That will seal the deal.
My prediction though is that Trump will get the nomination. And the Left and the others that suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome will go absolutely nuts. This does include the NeverTrumpers who all suffer from the mental illness of TDS.
The Left then will double down on their efforts to take Trump off the ballot. A fight that will go all the way to the Supreme Court. And the High Court’s opinion will be in-favor of keeping Trump on the ballot. This will enrage the Left even more. Blaming Trump for the results of the Court.
And because of this “betrayal” by the High Court. The Biden-Harris-Obama Administration will begin to pack the High Court with additional Leftist justices to ensure that those causes will be championed for at least a generation.
Of course, the last thing that will happen, is that Biden will be re-elected in November. Not because it’s the will of the people but because we never addressed the issue of election fraud from 2020. And the Left will use that tactic again in 2024.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When it comes to finding topics for this weekly excursion into Leftist insanity, patience can be a virtue. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a topic in mind only to have another topic jumping to the head of the line. (Then again, it might have something to do with me not being able to count, but that’s neither here nor there.)
This week was one of those times. I intended to write about a potential Presidential candidate getting shafted more than a gay porn filmed in an elevator when our good friends at the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision striking down race as a factor in determining college admissions via Affirmative Action..
Thank you, Jesus.
Of course, Leftists freaked out all over the place, which means not only does it give us the topic for this week, but gives us an opportunity to mock the Leftists into the Stone Age! Yay!
Affirmative Action
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary program to address racism in social, academic, and political arenas
What it really means – a program that fights racism by being racist
Affirmative Action began in 1961 due to Executive Order 10925 issued by President John F. Kennedy where he called for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” But before you could say ” color-blind society,” Leftists took the idea, twisted it, and turned it into a way to legally discriminate to address grievances, both real and imagined.
Then, it went from letting blacks have a chance to seize the American dream to letting them have all the chances. And it worked well for a while. Eventually, other races wanted in on the Affirmative Action gravy train, and Leftists being Leftists let them. And it worked even better.
Until Asian-Americans entered the equation. (For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the educational aspects of Affirmative Action since that was the issue before the Supreme Court.) Seems when it came to college admissions with institutes of higher learning that adopted Affirmative Action in said admissions (like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, just to name two completely random universities), Asian-American students kept getting passed over for…you guessed it, blacks who didn’t exactly match their Asian-American counterparts, but did have the right skin color.
And guess how that turned out. Oh yeah, it got slapped down by a 6-3 majority like a narc at a biker rally.
Granted, the Asian-American community is understandably split on whether Affirmative Action is a good thing. A majority of those who have heard of it think it’s a good thing, but they don’t think race should be a factor in college admissions. So, they’re working at cross purposes, like your fingers in a Chinese finger trap.
And the Left won’t let that go for a second.
Of course, when they’re trying to explain the dichotomy/duality/hypocrisy, they resort to letting members of the Asian-American community do the whitesplaining for them. And, not surprisingly, they all seem to parrot the same squawking point: Affirmative Action good, Supreme Court decision bad.
But here’s the thing. Affirmative Action in education is racist by definition. Colleges and universities literally used race as a means to determine entry, thus favoring one race over another.
Literally racism. And I do mean literally, kids.
Affirmative Action as the Leftists practice it pulls an Animal Farm by suggesting some racism is more oppressive than others, so they put different weight to certain racial elements in order to rectify the racial injustices of the past. By being racist.
And people wonder why I’m so fucked in the head after being a Leftist.
Regardless, Leftists were pissed at the Supreme Court decision. Some, like Chief Running Mouth, lamented what is being presumed as a loss to black and Hispanic students. Others, like President Puddin’ Head Joe, told the truth without knowing it. Still others, like California Governor Gavin “Human Smarm” Newsom, tripped over his state’s own laws while blasting the decision.
But the general consensus among Leftists is, well, melting down in racist ways, with an “expand the Supreme Court” twist for good measure. (By the way, Erica Marsh, you might want to call the office and let them know you’ve dug yourself a hole and need a really long ladder to get out. And you can’t blame MAGA Republicans for you being stupid.)
Never let a crisis, even one of their own creation, go to waste, amirite?
And believe me, this Supreme Court decision going against the Left is a crisis of their own creation by not really getting the whole “racism is bad” thing. Even if you think you have the best of intentions, racism will get its ass kicked by the law sooner or later. And when you consider how often Leftists have invoked the 14th Amendment as a means to try to punish politicians they say were part of the January 6 “insurrection,” you would think they would have read the first parts of it dealing with, oh I don’t know…equal protections under the law. You know, the very fucking thing the whole Amendment was about?
Nevertheless, this Supreme Court ruling is going to be a bitter pill for the Left to swallow because it’s the same thing that happened when Roe v Wade was sent back to the states. Leftists overplayed their hands and got away with it for decades because they made it socially unacceptable to oppose them. What they didn’t (and still don’t if I’m being honest) think about is when enough people say “fuck it” and stand up anyway. Then, we see how paper thin the Leftist tigers actually are. If the Left hadn’t twisted the original intent of Affirmative Action into a bean-counting system, they would have been fine and no Supreme Court case would have come forward because there wouldn’t have been grounds to do so.
Of course, this wouldn’t be an Affirmative Action ruling without Leftists singling out Justice Clarence Thomas because Leftists say he benefited from Affirmative Action practices to get into law school. Pretty big assumption, as Thomas has shown himself to be a keen legal and Constitutional mind (which might be one of the main reasons the Left hates him). It’s possible he got into law school through Affirmative Action, but it’s just as possible he got in on his merits. Only Thomas knows for sure.
Even if Thomas recused himself, the outcome would be the same, just with a 5-3 outcome. Nothing would have changed.
By the way, have you noticed how Thomas is the only one who’s questioned about whether he would have gotten into law school without Affirmative Action? Not Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor. Not Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Just Clarence Thomas. Of course, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson vote the “right” way, so they obviously got into their respective law schools totally on their merits and not because of their skin colors.
Wait. Aren’t Leftists complaining about blacks and Hispanics not getting educational spots due to this ruling? Yes, but I’m sure it’s just an amazing coincidence…
Nevertheless, using Affirmative Action for educational purposes usually winds up the same way using it in the private and pubic sectors go: a small handful of diamonds in a metric shit ton of, well, shit. Of course there’s a simple way to grab more diamonds than shit in this case. Something about hiring the best people for the job regardless of race. But I’m sure that will never work. I mean, when has hiring competent people ever been successful? You know, aside from just about every time it’s done.
But the Left keeps expecting hiring incompetents for high profile positions will wind up elevating them into the roles. But it never works that way. The incompetents will get a false sense of achievement and the overinflated egos that come with it, and as long as Leftists keep letting them either advance or spin their wheels where they are (and vote/rule the way the Left wants, of course) these folks will be harder to remove than a Jehovah’s Witness tick with Super Glue on its jaws who moonlights as an IRS auditor.
This is made worse for college students who don’t have the luxury of a job to fall back on yet. For them, this is a do-or-die environment, one that is constantly being enabled by Leftists who want to feel good about “helping” minorities without actually doing anything. Once these students graduate, they are ill-prepared to handle a world where results matter. Skin color and misguided application of Affirmative Action can get your foot in the door, but if you can’t do the job, it’s going to cost money sooner or later.
But at least white Leftists feel good, right?
Say what you will about the Supreme Court, they got this decision right. Affirmative Action has no place in academia because it guarantees someone is going to get hurt by being coddled by a system that they will never allow to be applied to themselves.
Good luck with that, Leftists.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I cover a lot of topics for the Lexicon, but there are some that I shy away from most of the time. One of these topics is abortion. My reasons are simple: 1) it’s such an emotional issue that it’s impossible to discuss without someone getting pissed off, and 2) much like a Hannah Gadsby comedy special, there’s not much funny there. Even some of the periphery topics can get people mad.
Well, this is your warning that some of you reading beyond this point are gonna get pissed because we’re going into abortion.
In their post-Roe Handmaids Tale pseudo reality, Leftists are pushing an idea that women now will be required to take babies to term. In a double doozy of dumbassery, former Secretary of Labor and current member of the Lollipop Guild Robert Reich tweeted the following:
Forced birth in a country that refuses to protect its people from being shot down in a mass shooting.
That’s right, kids. Forced birth is apparently a thing, at least according to Leftists, which means it’s a subject that’s right in the Lexicon wheelhouse.
Damn you, Leftists.
forced birth
What the Left thinks it means – a condition created by Republicans where women are legally required to give birth under any and all circumstances
What it really means – a scary-sounding phrase without any connection to reality
For almost as long as I’ve been alive, Roe v Wade was the law of the land, making abortion a legal activity, as well as a coin of the Leftist realm. When the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, Leftists not only lost their shit, but started to make up new shit to replace it. Enter “forced birth.” All the usual culprits weighed in on the subject (using the same terminology and scare tactics, I might add). Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and even the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee weighed in, offering the most tepid of hot takes. Let me give you the short version.
Abortion good. Limits to abortion bad. Oh, and limits to abortion equals forced birth.
As with most terms used in the abortion debate, forced birth is a charged term, and it’s designed to be. Leftists love to combine words that don’t necessary go together, like climate justice or House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff. This is done to evoke emotions in line with what Leftists want us to feel or think (or feel instead of think).
In this case, they start with a word that is intended to make us feel bad, “forced.” This shocks us because people like freedom. If we’re forced to do something, our natural instinct is to resist.
Then, we come across “birth.” (Or at least the father did at conception.) Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, life is a pretty important subject. We understand it on a fundamental level and revere it to one extent or another. Even the most strident pro-choicer gets the importance of life; they just don’t feel bad at killing a baby in the womb because…reasons.
So, did the Dobbs decision force women to give birth? Nope! It affirmed there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and it left the decision to either the states or Congress. While the decision didn’t outright ban abortion, Leftists made it sound like it did, if only to continue its Handmaids Tale cosplay.
Although I’m not a lawyer since I have morals and a soul, the Dobbs decision made a lot of sense to me because it was based on simple logic and attention to details. Even though the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the Left argued it was an extension of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Samuel Alito referenced in his majority opinion:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The right to abortion does not fall within this category…. Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”
The TL:DL (Too Long: Didn’t Litigate) version: abortion isn’t a right at all, and the two major decisions related to it (Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey for those of you playing along at home) weren’t consistent with the Constitution as written. Hence, states can set whatever limits they want on abortion thanks to a little thing the hip kids like to call the Tenth Amendment.
But that takes away the Left’s best weapon in favor of abortion: judicial fiat. Since that’s not on the table anymore, Leftists resort to their fallback plan, that being openly lying to people to get them outraged at the Supreme Court and Republicans deciding a baby’s life is worth as much as the mother’s. Those bastards!
But out of chaos came some ingenuity, which is shocking for Leftists considering they’re usually dimmer than a burnt out light bulb in a goth kid’s bedroom. Leftists started volunteering to take women to states where abortions are legal if they live in a state where it isn’t. Oh, and to donate money towards that end because, let’s face it, schlepping caramel macchiatos at Starbucks doesn’t pay well enough to fund it themselves.
Now imagine if these same Leftists understood economics in the same way they understand interstate travel to kill a baby. But that’s a blog post for another time…
Meanwhile back at the main point, the truth is no one is forced to give birth in this country. Some states make it more difficult to get one, but that’s not the same thing as making women give birth. What it does do is create an incentive to plan a pregnancy and take steps to prevent it before doing the horizontal mambo under the sheets if you’re not ready to be a parent. Of course, this is beyond the pale for Leftists, who treat abortion like it’s Pez. After all, showing any amount of foresight, planning, and dare I say it responsibility might…make you become a Republican!
Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s clear that Robert Reich and anyone else who is pushing the forced birth bullshit aren’t helping the matter any. If we’re going to come to a functional, albeit tenuous, agreement on the topic, we need to be honest with each other. Both sides have legitimate concerns that can only be addressed with dialogue instead of diatribes. Granted, that seems less likely than Michael Bay making a good movie, but I can hope.
And to Mr. Reich, I’m sorry your attempt to push the forced birth lie came up a little short.
I’ll see myself out…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
By the time you read this, it will be close to or the end of October, which means two things. One, the Detroit Lions are mathematically eliminated from the post season, and two, it’s almost the end of Election Season. And of the two, the latter is clearly more painful.
It’s also the start of what the Left hopes to be a major turning point in what is looking to be a political assbeating of Biblical proportions. They’re hoping to energize women voters using one of the major wedge issues of my lifetime, abortion. After the US Supreme Court did the unthinkable and made abortion a state issue, Leftists created the term Roevember.
And, thus, the month of my birth gets ruined, but for a completely different reason.
Roevember
What the Left thinks it means – a rallying cry for women to vote out Republicans to protect their reproductive rights
What it really means – a neat catchphrase for an issue that isn’t that important right now
It’s conventional political wisdom that the party that controls the Presidency loses Congressional seats during the midterms, and you can count on the one hand of the world’s worst butcher the number of times it hasn’t happened in recent history. That means, if conventional wisdom holds true this year, Democrats stand to lose at least some of their elections. That gives them a vested interest in keeping their base energized. And what better way to do that than to hype up the potential of losing abortion rights unless Democrats get elected/reelected?
I mean, aside from coming up with an actual platform.
Under normal conditions, this tactic might work. After all, a Gallup poll from earlier this year shows a majority of American adults consider themselves to be pro choice, with 61% of women identifying as such. Granted, I’m not a doctor, so I might be assuming the respondents’ genders, but I’m going to go with it for the purposes of this sketch.
Unfortunately for Democrats, these midterms aren’t normal, and I’m not just talking about the freaks Democrats have running in certain races. (And I apologize to all the freaks out there for comparing them to Democrats.) When it comes to issues Americans think are important, abortion is waaaaaaaaaay down the list. Why it’s almost as if people are more concerned with the ec0nomy than killing babies! The absolute nerve!
This begs the question of why Leftists would continue to push abortion rights as an issue when the more pressing issue is the flaming dumpster fire that is our economy. I’m glad you asked! I have an idea about why that is. It may not be original, so if someone else thought of this first, I’m sure someone will let me know in the comments.
Politics today revolved heavily around what each side of the aisle considers to be what’s wrong with the world. When the economy is flush, the Right turn inward to find inspiration for what changes they want to make and then try to turn that inner vision into outer action. When the economy sucks more than a million Dysons at the center of a black hole, the Right’s introspection doesn’t extend outside of their homes very often, except to commiserate with others in the same boat.
The Left, on the other hand, don’t diversify their opinions on what’s wrong with the world. The issues they felt were super-ultra-important in 1992 aren’t too different than they are in 2022. Even the various “new” issues they’ve raised are offshoots of issues they’ve been railing on for decades, just with a new coat of paint. And no matter what, good economy or bad, these issues will always be at the core of the Left’s campaigns.
Which means they are woefully out of touch with the electorate this year.
One of the Left’s big assumptions is the 167.5 million women in the United States will be coming out to vote in Roevember. Although we don’t have any official numbers for the 2022 midterms (because they haven’t happened yet), it’s normal for voter turnout to be lower for midterm elections as opposed to Presidential elections. Let’s assume the numbers FairVote provides in the aforementioned link are accurate and voter turnout is 40%. That means only 67 million women will be voting, and of those 40.87 million of them consider themselves to be pro choice. Not an insignificant number, but a lot lower than the 167.5 million the Left predict will take part in Roevember. And that assumes all of those 40.87 million are a) eligible to vote, and b) inspired to vote for Democrats. A lot of assumptions being made on an issue only 4% of Americans surveyed think is important.
I promise the rest of this piece won’t be so numbers-heavy.
Although Leftists are great with catchy slogans, they’re piss-poor with timing. With the economy and inflation running rampant like Godzilla in a Japanese fishing village, they’ve chosen to make “let’s kill babies in the womb” their rallying cry. Then again, if my party was responsible for the Godzilla-esque trampling of the economy, I might want to try to divert attention to something else, too.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of the people reading this aren’t going to fall for the repackaging job the Left is doing with Roevember, but just know there are plenty outside of this group that will. If nothing else, just run down the numbers with them and let them know their passion for voting because of Roevember would be better suited for something far more productive.
Booing the Detroit Lions.
The Rule of Law(less)
In the aftermath of recent Supreme Court decisions that Leftists didn’t like, they’ve adopted a new plan of attack: undermining the credibility of the High Court by any means necessary. It’s even gotten to the point a Georgetown law professor tweeted out a missive calling the Supreme Court “actively rogue.”
Hoo boy. It’s one thing for a lay Leftist to tweet out something this stupid, but when it’s someone teaching future attorneys, the stupid actually hurts.
First off, Leftists need to drop the “rogue court” bullshit because, well, it’s bovine scat. Regardless of how you feel about it, the fact remains each current Supreme Court Justice went through the same process with only minor deviations from the set script. The opposing party tries to sink the nomination through stupid “gotcha” questions asked by politicians who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground, while the supporting party chucks more softballs than an explosion at a Nerf ball factory. Granted, it’s supposed to be more substantive than this, but this is the Senate we’re talking about here. You’re more likely to find a virgin on a porn set than you are a smart Senator.
One of the reasons the Left is committed to the “rogue Supreme Court” line is they got played by Mitch McConnell with an assist from Chuck Schumer. To try to get some of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through the confirmation process, Schumer set the precedent that a simple majority was good enough to approve the nominees. Well, McConnell applied that precedent to Supreme Court nominees, even after warning Senate Democrats of what could be coming if they went ahead with the Schumer strategy.
Then, there’s the Merrick Garland situation. Due to a vacancy on the High Court, President Obama had the opportunity to nominate a Justice, but McConnell again relied on precedent to block Garland’s nomination from going forward due to the vacancy occurring during a Presidential election year. As a result, Garland went from ineffective Supreme Court nominee to ineffective Attorney General, Donald Trump got three picks, and Leftists got their panties in a bunch because they got played by a Republican, and a Southern Republican at that!
That blow to the collectivist ego is what I think is driving the “rogue court” sentiment right now. The recent decisions going against the Left’s wishes add fuel to the fires of hatred, but it’s the agony of defeat that was the spark that set the kindling ablaze in the first place. And that’s what we have to fight right now. The Supreme Court isn’t acting on its own against the Constitution, as can be seen by, oh I don’t know, reading the fucking decisions before throwing a temper tantrum?
The thing is the Left doesn’t mind courts going rogue if the end result is what they wanted in the first place. Like Roe v. Wade, for example. The reason it’s been so controversial is because its legal and constitutional standing are shakier than Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 4.8 on the Richter Scale. Or that analogy, even. Anyway, the point is the Roe decision was eventually going to come to a head and the foundation of balsa wood and wet tissue paper it was sitting on would crumble. If Leftists wanted to avoid this problem, they would have codified legal abortion through the legislative process. However, they didn’t because a) they’re short-sighted, b) they’re dumbasses, and c) they ironically relied too heavily on the conservative nature of the Supreme Court.
Now, I’m not talking politically conservative here. What I mean is the High Court’s tendency not to undo lower court rulings unless there’s a Constitutional means to do it. As much judicial activism as there is in this country, the USSC isn’t a hotbed for it. In many cases, the rulings are based on legal scholarship, understanding of Constitutional principles, and a dispassionate approach. With abortion, however, that last one goes right out the window with Justices playing to their respective crowds. That turns any confirmation hearings into a political Kabuki theater where a lot gets said, but little of substance is found. You know, like a Kamala Harris speech.
Since the advent of “Borking” judicial nominees, politicians from both sides have figured out the art of the “gotcha” question, most of which with nothing to do with the job duties. Whether it’s asking a nominee whether Roe v. Wade is “settled law” or what a woman is, we should be collectively asking “What the actual fuck?” It’s not to develop a full picture of a nominee’s legal philosophy; it’s to try to draw rhetorical and metaphorical blood.
And now it’s being used to demand three current Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) be impeached for, get this, perjury when they said Roe was “settled law” when they were under oath at their confirmation hearings. Since most Senators have the intellectual prowess of kale, they fail to understand the fact any judicial candidates can only speak to the condition of the Roe decision at the time of the hearing because…they haven’t had a chance to rule on cases brought before the Supreme Court yet.
You know, I take back what I said about most Senators. Kale understands chronology better.
If you’re basing your entire belief of a “rogue court” on the idea current Justices lied under oath about “settled law” before they got to be Justices, you’re missing the point completely. We’re not asking the High Court to be prognosticators. Their job is to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases brought before them. And with Roe, the “settled law” was on unsettled ground.
And while we’re here, let’s get something crystal clear: “settled law” is not a thing, especially these days when lawyers find all sorts of new ways to fuck up the language in defense of an idea, let alone a client. It may be a rare occurrence, but the Supreme Court does change its mind on legal matters (and not because some evil right wing cabal with deep pockets is secretly paying them under the robes). Some of the most recent examples of “settled law” being tossed out like Charlie Sheen at an AA meeting involve gun control. After decades of rulings that have allowed strict gun control laws in cities and states to stand, the Supreme Court has changed course and overturned previous decisions based on the Second Amendment, and it looks like those more recent rulings are going to stick, at least for now.
Even if you discount that example, there’s another example that you might have heard of where “settled law” got nuked. It’s called Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a decision that reversed the “separate but equal” ruling from Plessy v. Ferguson.
Any Leftists want to call out that “rogue Supreme Court” for undoing “settled law”?
Although a lot of the hatred is being directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, there is additional vitriol being spewed at the aforementioned Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Although the Left wants to make it about alleged perjury, the actual reason may be a lot more basic. And I mean that as in “simple” and “crude.” What do these three Justices have in common, aside from sticking in Leftist craws? They were all appointed under Donald Trump. Even though Leftists managed to beat Trump in the 2020 election, he still manages to find a way to live rent free in their collectivist heads and still have space for all of Trump’s stuff, an Olympic size swimming pool, the Taj Mahal, and at least 3 football fields (NFL, Canadian, and Arena Football).
The fact Trump’s appointees have foiled the Left repeatedly pisses them off to no end, so instead of taking their lumps and figuring out how to govern, they use the “rogue court” defense. After all, they can’t be legitimate because Trump appointed them, right! And they still maintain Trump was never a legitimate President (although voters in Wisconsin might disagree). If they can’t win, they claim chicanery. Like when they claim Senators get into office because of gerrymandering.
Yes, kids. They are just that stupid.
The Left also has a Constitutional problem when it comes to “settled law,” namely their contrary position on the Constitution itself. Remember, the Left loves to say the Constitution is a “living document,” meaning they can make up what they want to be in there and get a court to agree with them. But wait…if the Constitution can be fluid, why are some Supreme Court decisions based on interpretations of it unable to be just as flexible? Or it is only decisions Leftists agree with that are set in stone?
Things that make you go hmmmm…
To put a nice tidy bow on this piece, we need to consider Leftists are now trying to figure out how to “discipline” the Supreme Court for going rogue (at least to Leftists). All because the High Court didn’t rule the way they wanted. For all their faults, the Right understands the rules and found a way to get a long-desired goal by working within the system. They didn’t bitch and moan about how the Supreme Court was horrible and needed to be punished. They got Justices appointed, crafted legislation and legal arguments to achieve the goal, and got it done without too much drama. Calling a branch of the government “rogue” doesn’t move the needle for anyone but those who already think that way, and it doesn’t help make the argument for anyone outside of the hivemind.
Ultimately, though, it is nothing but sound and fury, representing nothing but a hissy fit from people who didn’t think they would ever have to play within the rules to get what they wanted. Now that the Supreme Court has ended that judicial gravy train for the Left, they’re left complaining, maligning, and utterly missing the point. The Right plays the long game, while the Left plays the short-sighted game, and the Left keeps losing with this strategy. Do you honestly think calling the Supreme Court “rogue” or looking for ways to neutralize, circumvent, or vaguely threaten the High Court will work?
Spoiler Alert: it won’t. And it won’t help you look any less lawless.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
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.
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!
Not Qualified
The Newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States wasn’t nominated because of her merits, skills, knowledge, or experience. She was nominated because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
During her nomination hearing we learned her lacking of knowledge. As a woman, she couldn’t define a what a woman even was. Something that you don’t have to be a biologist to know.
During her nomination hearing we learned of her lack of merits. Allowing light sentences for dangerous criminals allowing them to leave prison early and to re-offend violent crimes.
During her nomination hearing we learned of her skills and experience within the knowledge of Law. No one is all encompassing in this vast body of skills and experience. And she was no exception.
I think she certainly needed more experience, merits, and knowledge before being named and confirmed to the highest Court.