Blog Archives

SCOTUS: Look At the Big Picture


President Trump will announce his candidate to the appointment as Supreme Court Justice on Saturday, 5 P.M.  I fear it will be Amy Coney Barrett.

Let us disabuse ourselves of the idea that she would be the ideal candidate. Her Catholicism is, from what I read, creepy; she belongs to some strange group of “novelty Catholics”; she is the cafeteria, “I oppose the death penalty” kind of gal; she has not given any indication of espousing freedoms in the robust way necessary today to counter the massive push towards government omnipotence. Possibly the worst of all, her Originalism is, some say, not so strong as advertised. I hope Trump will select somebody else, with a more clearly right wing record and unchallenged Originalist credentials.

Still, I profit from the occasion to remind my reader that God never lays a straight road in front of us. Progress is never a luminous process by which lights dispels the darkness whilst all the world watches in astonishment. Rather, it is a curvy, bumpy, often messy process, which requires a big picture mentality to see what is happening behind the drama of the day.

Take Trump. The best President that anybody could reasonably wish, and one who delivered beyond my wildest expectations, he is not without substantial flaws. I am not talking here of his Twitter behaviour, which is likely necessary and for which I do not care. I am talking of stuff like the occasional pro-alphabet rhetoric, the two years of deep sleep on the Wall, the unwillingness to go hard against illegals (the court haven’t helped him, but I never saw the kind of ruthless determination he could have showed, for example greatly increasing the budget and activity of the ICE in problem cities). I never liked the DACA rhetoric, either. The list can go on. Still, this guy is, on the whole, simply stellar.

Coming back to us, if Amy Coney Barrett is appointed, we would not have the dream candidate. But a huge improvement on RBG she would be for sure. Plus, she could improve with age.

In the end, it’s always a risk. Even Gorsuch proved much less reliable than expected. You never know how these things go. I for myself would wish for the Supreme Court to be moved to Boise, Idaho, far removed from the toxic Washington D.C. mentality and social environment. Let your average Justice keep some horses, sheep, hens and rabbits (if Anglos keep rabbits for consumption) in his farm 15 minutes of driving away from the job. We would see a different mentality at play, one much nearer to the one of the Founding Fathers.

Still, this is what we have. I think we are progressing, bumps and all. No, do not expect a repeal of Roe vs Wade with her nominated. Probably, do not expect it in the next years anyway. The Supreme Court will, I suspect, only change the Country when the Country has already changed. It starts from the grassroots, it ends with the Justices. We can dream, but we need to be realistic.

My bet is that Roe vs Wade will start to be eroded, slowly and methodically, but without the fatal blow for many years, possibly in my lifetime. But again, I saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the deposition and execution of Ceausescu in a matter of hours. Providence orders everything in a wonderful way.

I will await the announcement with a moderate optimism, thinking that things are going the right way.

It will never be 6-3. Roberts is actually a fake conservative, and a very real progressive and part of the Champagne Court Circuit.

But it will be much better than now.


So-Called Same Sex “Marriages”: Some Light Falls On The Boston Globe

You wouldn’t believe it, but sometimes even journalists of liberal newspapers can grasp elementary truths and inform their readers of the fact. This time, it has happened to the author of this article on the Boston Globe, the NYT-owned, surprisingly-still-alive “progressive” newspaper. The issue is, as so often these days, the so-called “marriage” of troubled souls.

The author of the article demolishes – from the left; which hurts in a special way – one of the mantras of the homo mafia: the desire to equate their “rights” with the civil rights battles of the Sixties and in particular, the idea that as interracial marriages were allowed, then “marriages” between (or one day, who knows: among) homosexuals should be allowed too. Let us see what Mr Jacoby has to say on the matter (emphases always mine):

When the Supreme Court ruled in June 1967 that Virginia’s law penalizing interracial marriage could not stand, it was not changing the fundamental and enduring meaning of marriage: It was affirming it. It was upholding the integrity of marriage by protecting it from irrelevant — and unconstitutional — racial manipulation. Virginia had interfered with the core elements of marriage in order to promote white supremacy, a value completely alien to marriage. Marriage is designed to bring men and women together; anti-miscegenation laws frustrated that design, and could not stand.

That this is nothing to do with an assumed right of perverts to have a legal recognition for their perversion is elegantly expressed in this way:

No one was a fervent proponent of gay* marriage 44 years ago this month when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that laws barring whites and blacks from marrying were unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage wasn’t even a fringe issue on June 12, 1967, the day the court handed down its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, invalidating anti-miscegenation statutes on the books in 16 states as “invidious racial discrimination . . . repugnant to the 14th Amendment.’’ If anyone had suggested to Chief Justice Earl Warren or his colleagues that in refusing to allow Virginia to continue perverting its marriage laws out of racial bigotry they were pointing the way to gay* and lesbian marriages, they would have found the claim unintelligible.

Pure common sense, you will say. Wrong. If you were a liberal, you’d be exposed to literature claiming that the changes brought about by that sentence are allegedly “incomplete” because so-called gay* marriage is still illegal in most American states (I kid you not; it is in the article linked), and the like. A tough job, being a liberal and trying to stay sane.

At this point, Mr Jacoby gets slightly more aggressive:

By now, of course, the idea that same-sex couples should have the same freedom to marry as interracial couples has become a favorite gay*-rights trump card. So has the view that opponents of gay* marriage occupy the same moral and legal swamp as the segregationists who thought Mildred and Richard Loving’s marriage should be a crime.

Apart from the use of that strange word, gay*, this could have been written by a conservative journalist. Oh-oh.

The core of the argument is in the following lines:

Same-sex marriage, too, interferes with the core elements of wedlock in order to advance an unrelated goal — the dignity and equality of gays* and lesbians. The fact that many decent people ardently embrace that goal doesn’t change reality: The essential, public purpose of marriage is to unite male and female — to bind men and women to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior may produce. It is rooted in the belief that every child needs a mother and a father. Gay* marriage, whether enacted by lawmakers or imposed by judges, disconnects marriage from its most basic idea. Ultimately, that isn’t tenable either.

Apart from the obscenely misguided idea that an anti-Christian perverted militant may be “decent” other than in his table or cocktail party manners, this hits the bull’s-eye. Note here that this isn’t an affirmation of the uselessness of such a legislation: this is an emphatic affirmation of its biological absurdity; something that no law or judicial activism will ever be able to change. Boldly, the author makes a claim that in a conservative writer would be considered triumphalistic and extremely reactionary: the so-called homo-marriage won’t last, because it’s too absurd to stand the test of reality.

The best part is for the end:

The old laws banning interracial marriage had a long run but they eventually collapsed. The new laws in New York and some other states authorizing same-sex marriage may be destined for a long run as well, but I suspect they too will likely eventually collapse. Marriage — male-female marriage — is indispensable to human welfare. That is why it has existed in virtually every known human society. And why it cannot be permanently redefined.

Congratulation to the Boston Globe for managing, even as liberals, to see the light now and then.


*”gay” = here: homosexual(s). Don’t ask me why.

%d bloggers like this: