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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There’s an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” With a wild Presidential election year and 2020 being, well, 2020, we are indeed living in interesting times. And that has lead to some interesting prospects coming up sooner than we think.

For the past couple of months, the Left has floated the idea of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court, a practice known as “packing the court.” It’s been done, or at least threatened, in the past with varying degrees of success. Now, in the shadow of Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away and Amy Coney Barrett possibly becoming the newest Supreme Court Justice, the Left wants there to be more chairs that need to be filled.

Looks like Norm Abrams might need to start a show called This Old House of Justice. And maybe he could make some new chairs on the Olde Yankee Woodshop.

Meanwhile, let’s unpack this packing the court business, shall we?

packing the court

What the Left thinks it means – adding more Supreme Court Justices to balance the diversity of the High Court and the ideas being discussed

What it really means – adding more Supreme Court Justices so the Left can circumvent making an argument to the American people

Let’s be frank. This whole “packing the court” idea wouldn’t have become an issue if President Donald Trump lost and if the Senate were under Democrat control. With Hillary Clinton as President, the Left could have counted on her to find a nominee who was far enough Left that he/she/zer could make Lyndon LaRoche look like Rush Limbaugh. And with a Democrat-controlled Senate, the advise and consent could be done via TikTok, or possibly through emojis.

Even that might be too complex for some of the Senators, but that’s another story.

Once Trump won, the Left’s plans went up in smoke like Denver, Colorado, on 4/20. Then, when the Democrats failed to win back the Senate with their can’t-miss slogan “Orange Man Bad,” they were left with trying to impeach the President for crimes that weren’t actually crimes, per se, so much as they were the delusional rantings of a group of Leftists whose knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with spelling “Constitution.” When that succeeded and Trump wasn’t removed from office for, well, not doing anything illegal, the Left’s focus became adding seats to the Supreme Court to counteract the President’s agenda.

Before I go further, let me point out the Left aren’t known for good long-term strategy. Their strategy is in-the-moment and assumes the best possible outcome. So, when their ideas crash and burn like the Hindenburg but with more government spending attached to it, they don’t know how to react. To them, their plans were and are perfect and it must be because of dirty tricks by the Republicans that the plans didn’t come to fruition. Case in point: Russiagate. At this point, they would be happy to prosecute a Trump surrogate who likes White Russians or had a salad with Russian dressing once, if only to “prove” Trump got help from Russia to win the Presidency. It couldn’t have been something else, like Hillary Clinton being the worst candidate in recent history (and that includes Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, kids).

Meanwhile, back in the original point I was making, the Left hasn’t thought out this packing the court idea very well for the reasons I mentioned above. They are assuming Joe “I Lost Twice in Previous Presidential Candidacies and I Still Got the Nomination” Biden will win because…say it with me, friends…”Orange Man Bad.” In order for this plan to work, Democrats need to retake the Senate, and this year is just crazy enough that it could happen. Having said that, it’s not a lock by any stretch of the imagination. Even less than 30 days before the election, something crazy can happen that will upset the checkerboard.

Like, maybe…avoiding answering the question about whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in favor of packing the court.

Oh, and the continuing chaos in Portland and other cities across the country.

Or the poor performances of Biden and Harris in the debates.

Or Hunter Biden being indicted for financial crimes aided by his father.

You know, any of the usual things that can trip up a candidate this close to Election Day.

The point is packing the court relies upon Joe Biden winning and Democrats getting control of the Senate again. If one of those prospects doesn’t pan out, it’s game over. But there’s another aspect the Left hasn’t through about: President Trump might pack the court before Leftists get a chance. You think Amy Coney Barrett is a dangerous candidate? Imagine repeating that process with men and women just like her.

That popping noise you hear right now is the exploding of Leftists’ heads as they realize the President could do just that.

Which will not only make the Left mad, but that much more motivated to win the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 so they could get more Justices on the Supreme Court…which will motivate the Right to do the same. And before we know it, the Supreme Court will need to meet at FedEx Field. On the plus side, the Washington Football Team (or as I call them, the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins) aren’t using it for much right now, so I’m sure sharing won’t be an issue.

The bigger issue, however, is it creates a situation where the legal system gets bogged down to the point of working even more slowly than it does now. The more Justices you add, the more people have to touch the case and the slower the resolution will be, unless the Supreme Court wants to do a superficial job which increases the chance of poor rulings from the bench. I’m talking Plessy v. Ferguson level bad here. Plus, with civil and human rights cases, a speedy and fair resolution are essential because of the impact such cases have on society and the legal system immediately and years down the road. The Left likes to say “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And now they want to make justice even slower because of a President they didn’t think could win and a Senate they thought they couldn’t lose. What happens when the wheels of justice don’t move?

That silence you hear is the Left not being able to come up with an answer consistent with their idea to pack the court.

Regardless, packing the court is going to be more of a problem than it’s worth (which is zilch). The fact it hasn’t been thought out enough yet to be persuasive to anyone outside of the Leftist hivemind should be enough of a red flag to keep yourselves far away from adopting the idea. But if not, think about the lines at your local government institution, whether it be the post office, the DMV, or a county-level office. In some cases, things run smoothly, while in others, they run at the speed of inert.

Guess which option packing the court will achieve.

Keeping the Faithless

The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.

And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.

The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.

Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.

The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”

What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.

Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.

In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.