Tag: us supreme court

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.

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!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett may not have had a chance to figure out what other Justices wear under their robes, she has shown she can sway a decision in short order. By a 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court struck down New York State’s restriction on religious services due to COVID-19. And as you might expect, the Left took it as well as they usually do: by using Twitter to call her “Amy Covid Barrett.”

The reason for the Left’s latest bout of Loser-itis, aside from resting on the laurels of two previous decisions in their favor, is a gross misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Many Leftists on Twitter felt the ruling violated the Establishment Clause because…well, I’m still trying to figure that out, but it might have something to do with Justice Barrett’s faith.

The heart of the case involves faith, and not just Justice Barrett’s. Thanks to New York Governor Andrew “Fredo’s Smarter Brother” Cuomo’s edicts, the question of religious freedom during a pandemic came front and center. And for this week’s Lexicon, let’s take a look at the larger concept of religious freedom.

religious freedom

What the Left thinks it means -the right to worship as you see fit, unless you’re a Christian

What it really means – a vital freedom the Left feels it has to destroy or undercut

The Left’s approach to organized religion is much like their ethical standards; a lot depends on the situation. Much like their world view, Leftists approach religion in terms of a power dynamic, with Christians (used interchangeably with the term “evangelicals”) seen as the most powerful. As a result, Leftists want to hinder Christianity while elevating other religions, namely Islam. That means Muslims get the benefit of the doubt whenever one of theirs does something minor like, say, killing coworkers at a Christmas party, but Christians don’t when they do something major, like…putting a Nativity scene in a public park.

Thanks, ACLU.

And really that’s how the Left has made their religious animosity into law: through the judicial system. Whenever a Christian makes a move in accordance with his/her faith, the Left runs to Big Daddy Government to get their way. Through legal wrangling, identifying loopholes that are either in the original text or an Oktoberfest-pretzel-making frenzy of legal arguing, and a Supreme Court case that made any public school action subject to the “Congress shall make no law” section of the First Amendment, you’re more likely to find a non-violent ANTIFA member than you are to find a Leftist willing to let Christians celebrate without issue.

Although Fox News and others have called such a notion this time of year “The War on Christmas,” the real issue isn’t so specific. Any time a Leftist strikes a blow against Christianity, it affects all religions because the same rules can, may, and eventually will be used against them all. Need proof? Governor Cuomo’s edict that brought about this Supreme Court decision affected any religious gathering. In response, members of the Catholic Church and Jewish faith brought the suit that ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court’s lap.

And because Justice Barrett wasn’t shy about her faith during her confirmation hearing, the Left pinned the decision on her. But the reality is…the Left sucks at reading the Constitution. Although they’re familiar with the Establishment Clause, they overlook the second half which prevents Congress from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Using Leftist logic, that means Governor Cuomo did his brother Fredo proud…in the bad decisions department.

And if there’s one thing Leftists hate, it’s using their own tactics against them. Well, except if you take into consideration the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upheld similar restrictions in two previous cases, and her replacement turned the tide. Regardless, there was a clear violation of religious freedom in each case, but only the most recent decision recognized it and brought it to the forefront where it should have been in the first place.

That’s the problem, though. The Left has made it easy to ignore or overlook religious freedom because they have successfully lobbied society to adopt an “all or nothing” approach to religion. Essentially, the Left says religious freedom is only applicable if all religions are represented. Otherwise, the only fair thing to is to have no religions represented. Using people’s feelings to get what they want. That’s the Leftist way!

This is going to be a controversial statement for some and it’s not meant to offend. If you want religious freedom for all, you are going to have to get along with people of different creeds. That means not trying to convert non-believers and leaving them alone to worship as they see fit. The expectation, though, is they will do the same. To put it in the Lutheran vernacular, it’s one big potluck where everyone will bring a little something to pass, and no matter how bad the Jello is, you put it aside and focus on the Little Smokies. There is strength in numbers, and when it comes to religious freedom, there is no time to let theological disagreements get between us.

So, break bread with a Baptist! Go to brunch with a Buddhist! Get lunch with a Lutheran! Grab a coffee with a Catholic! Share a snack with a member of the Church of Shatner (and, yes, this is a real thing)! Dine with a deist! And round out your night with s’mores with Satanists! As that great philosopher Red Green says, we’re all in this together.



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.