Quotes Suitable for Framing: Clarence Thomas

Monday, January 18, AD 2016

 

Our small, soft hands blistered quickly at the start of each summer, but Daddy (the maternal grandfather of Clarence Thomas) never let us wear work gloves, which he considered a sign of weakness. After a few weeks of constant work, the bloody blisters gave way to hard-earned calluses that protected us from pain. Long after the fact, it occurred to me that this was a metaphor for life–blisters come before calluses, vulnerability before maturity.

He never praised us, just as he never hugged us. Whenever my grandmother urged him to tell us that we had done a good job, he replied, “That’s their responsibility. Any job worth doing is worth doing right.”

The family farm and our unheated oil truck became my most important classrooms, the schools in which Daddy passed on the wisdom he had acquired in the course of a long life as an ill-educated, modestly successful black man in the Deep South. Despite the hardships he had faced, there was no bitterness or self-pity in his heart. As for bad luck, he didn’t believe in it.

Justice Clarence Thomas, My Grandfather’s Son

Justice Thomas has called his barely literate grandfather, the late Myers Anderson, who raised him and his brother after his father ran off, the greatest man he has ever known. He taught him the value of hard work, self reliance and a striving to achieve against the odds, essential lessons that too many Americans, no matter how well educated, fail to ever learn.

 

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Clarence Thomas

  • What a contrast to the present occupant of the White House, and his Dreams of My Father stuff.

  • White liberals who ridicule Clarence Thomas are never called racist.
    .
    But white conservatives who ridicule Barack Hussein Obama are always called raacist.

  • The problem with discerning good from evil is that they both do their battles among fallen men.

    Clarence Thomas, was merely a darker–skinned Bork, and thus even more dangerous to the cause.

  • So, racism didn’t cause poverty in the Thomas household. Maybe government should look into his upbringing, since it sees racism everywhere and has no idea how to combat it without making matters worse.

  • ‘ Long after the fact, it occurred to me that this was a metaphor for life–blisters come before calluses, vulnerability before maturity.

    He never praised us, just as he never hugged us. Whenever my grandmother urged him to tell us that we had done a good job, he replied, “That’s their responsibility. Any job worth doing is worth doing right.” ‘

    Most of the degenerate social situation is a result of laws emphasizing vulnerability and festering its blisters, with no mandate for responsibility and maturity. Good work is not a legal mandate. Good is not definable in a godless society. The loss (or unbridled ridicule) of men, such as Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, began the spoil. Stoplights and speed limits are good, law knows that much, and takes the responsibility to develop proper ways to safely proceed through intersections with due consideration for all kinds of society found at intersections.

  • Hands down my favorite jurist. If we could just get 8 more like him on board.

  • Funny thing…before the internet, I didn’t know he was black. Not like Supreme Court Justices were a big topic of conversation, but it did come up a few times, and nobody cared. What mattered is he prods tailbone, so to speak.

    There’s some economist whose name escapes me at the moment who is also black, and I’m pretty sure my mom still doesn’t know. Even more sure she doesn’t care, other than in the sense that it’d make her laugh because folks assume she must be racist.

    That book about black rednecks comes to mind… his grandfather did a very good job of making sure his family escaped it.

  • Foxfier: I believe Thomas Sowell might be the economist you’re thinking of.
    The man is a national treasure.

  • I think the quotation is an illustration of how admirable and disagreeable qualities co-exist and, to some degree, feed off each other. There is something wrong with regarding such a person as admirable in an unqualified way.

  • Funny thing…before the internet, I didn’t know he was black.

    I know somebody who’s young enough to have been blissfully unaware of Thomas’s confirmation fight.

    And don’t forget Walter E. Williams

  • I was seven.

    By the time I heard about it, it was more of a focus on using it to promote “see, women are abused” or countering Clinton’s…um… activities than the whole tired saw of “black men are rapists” that amazingly shows up every time there’s a conservative black male getting too upity.

  • Sorry, 8, wrong confirmation.

  • “I think the quotation is an illustration of how admirable and disagreeable qualities co-exist and, to some degree, feed off each other. There is something wrong with regarding such a person as admirable in an unqualified way.”

    I disagree Art. When his grandsons came to live with him his first words to them were, “The damn vacation’s over.” Myers Anderson was called upon to raise his grandsons and he did so in a manner that so many people would be better off if their own fathers were more like him. Myers was a devout Catholic and he paid $30.00 per year each back in the Fifties, that he could ill afford, to have his two grandsons attend a Catholic school run by nuns. He ran a hard school for his grandsons at home and he gave them the best education available when they weren’t and it paid off for both of them. I can fully understand the deep admiration and love Thomas has for the man who transformed his life.

  • The old saw (I think it’s in The OT), “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” may also be translated, “Spare the rod, hate the child.”

  • Foxfier, Both Thomas Sowell (85) and Walter E. Williams (79) are brilliant economists who happen to be black conservative/libertarians. You may have read their columns or heard them on conservative talk radio as guests or in Williams’ case as a guest hosts. He has a good sense of humor where Sowell is more serious. Both have written books on a variety of subjects. Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a collection of 6 essays, and Late- Talking Children and the Einstein Syndrome dispel myths about such children’s intellectual abilities.

  • Explains why I’m having such a time– they’ve both got nice, English names, both old style college professors, both have nice voices, a generation before my folks and they talk sense.

    https://youtu.be/b4Ubp7U9Dq4

    90% sure it’s Sowell that mom’s a fan of, but could very well be both. The only person I can remember that she knew and cared the color of is Charley Pride, and that’s because she laughed herself sick when some lady called up a show he was on to chew him out for, per the lady, not talking like a real black guy.

  • Foxfier, Both Thomas Sowell (85) and Walter E. Williams (79) are brilliant economists

    Not checked his publication record. As far as I am aware, Walter Williams is a rank-and-file economist who is a biting wit as a producer of topical commentary. Sowell was a teacher of economics, but his dissertation and scholarly publications were on the history of economic thought, not economics per se. His most scholarly work is in intellectual history. He has produced some syntheses on historical topics as well. His topical commentary is the best there is and he’s an astute a diagnostician of the pathologies of public discussion as any you’re likely to find. Vision of the Anointed, which his derived from more scholarly work, is full of aha! moments and more illustrative than Alvin Gouldner’s The New Class.

    People who produce seminal work in economics are not writing for general audiences bar Krugman, and Krugman is semi-retired as a teacher and a scholar and not producing professional papers anyone would care much about anymore. His topical commentary is embarrassing (and, one suspects, written by his horrid red-haze wife).

  • I disagree Art.

    You might admire someone in aspects. You might admire someone generally. If you admire them in an unqualifed way, it’s likely there’s something about them that you’ve used the trick mirrors of your mind to make go away. There’s some distance between a critique of contemporary child-rearing (which artificially delays entry into the workforce and puts the young in far too much contact with the sort of squish-head who substitutes her own sense of emotional equilibrium for academic and moral education) and the late Mr. Anderson’s septicemia-R-us hostility to his grandsons. Mr. Thomas has to make his peace with his past and get through the day. The rest of us need not pretend what’s in front of us in black letters is not there.

  • “and the late Mr. Anderson’s septicemia-R-us hostility to his grandsons.”

    Oh please. If working without work gloves was the worst thing that happened to the Thomas boys, they were blessed indeed. I grew up in a rural environment like Thomas and his grandfather is rather like several men I knew and admired while growing up. (Most of the agricultural labor I did was normally without work gloves because I had a better grip without them.) I am sure that Myers Anderson had his flaws as all of us do, but in his role as parent I think Thomas was right to celebrate him, especially considering the havoc that growing up fatherless has spread among blacks and is now doing the same among whites.

  • Also grew up as an ag kid, also didn’t wear gloves.
    Same reason, hands work better without ’em.
    Gloves are good for jobs that either you can’t develop a resistance to (barbed wire) or that’s short term (manually stacking the entire hay harvest in square bales) or where there’s some other risk, not for protection against normal callus-building exposure. (Say, frostbite.)
    ****
    Most of the folks I knew who were missing fingers lost them due to either gloves or rings.

  • Mr. McClarey, I don’t admire you for the pose you insist on striking, but I will say no more.

  • No pose Art. We simply see things differently in regard to Myers Anderson.

8 Responses to Clarence Thomas on Abraham Lincoln

  • Curse you, Donald, for posting “Clarence Thomas on Abraham Lincoln” when I don’t have 52:28 to spare!

  • Pingback: If You Don’t Need God’s Mercy, Don’t Go to Mass
  • I attended a talk he gave at the Union Club in NYC and chatted some time with him. He was truly a most exceptional speaker and the nicest person.
    However, ditto on having 58 minutes. I have three children 14. 13 and 10 and a big driveway to shovel!

  • I skipped around and listened to some of this. If you only have a minute go to minute @37 and listen a couple of minutes. You will be glad you did. (I ended up listening to the end.) He is right on target and sticking his neck out for his liberal counterparts whose abuse he exposes. That democratic institutions can impose against the good of the people and against the constitution. Then he goes onto the doctrine of “care not” of the people who let it happen. Abortion could easily be a subtext. Marriage. Religious Freedom. Liberty itself.

  • Download Realplayer’s free player and open the youtube video in it. Click on the popup link and the video will be saved as a local copy in your computer. I too have small children and 58 minutes comes in small installments!

  • This was posted at Bonchamps: Liberalism, Capitalism & Pluralism: The Catholic Wars Continue but with Clarence Thomas speaking of Lincoln and the Declaration if Independence and The Constitution as inseparable this comment carries more relevance here, I hope. So with your indulgence, it is reposted here
    .
    The atheist and the secular humanist are to be tolerated. Atheism and secular humanism are to be exposed as the fraud, the perjury, the lie, that they are. Atheism refuses to acknowledge the existence of God. The Supreme Sovereign Being, our Creator, endows all unalienable human, civil rights. Unalienable rights are endowed by the infinite God. The state, constituted by man, is finite and all rights endowed by the state are finite. Finite human rights have an expiration date, and unless constantly renewed and ratified, they may expire or lose their efficacy. Finite human right, unacknowledged, puts man at the mercy of the state.
    Infinite human rights come from the infinite God. Unending and unalienable human rights comes an unending and unalienable Creator.
    It is the desire of God that all men be free. Our Creator has created man in freedom, freedom from enslavement to every vice and every addiction to every sort of evil. Man is created to be especially free to choose good over the deceit of the devil.
    It is the will of God that man might live in peace with his neighbor. God inspires man to constitute the state that all unalienable rights of man might be shared to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” all future generations, persons still in the mind of God, our Creator.
    It is the duty of the state constituted by man’s free will to deliver equal Justice. Equal Justice may only be established through virtue, through the innocence and virginity of the newly begotten human soul created in legal and moral innocence. Manmade Justice will always bear the mark of finite, imperfect man.
    Freedom of Religion must remain constant so that when the atheist and secular humanist freely choose Truth, the unalienable right to freedom of religion may be theirs to embrace. This is evident in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.
    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
    Citing the whole First Amendment, including the phrase, ”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Jefferson then comments about “a wall of separation of church and state.” The wall of separation of church and state has been abused by the atheist and the secular humanist to remove any free expression of religion, to impose atheism, their own agenda, to bamboozle and tyrannize and obliterate the unalienable human rights endowed by our Creator, God, the Supreme Sovereign Being in Whose image and likeness man is created with a rational, immortal human soul, endowed with free will, intellect and sovereign personhood. Enough of the half-truths of atheism and the skullduggery of secular humanism, if the atheist and secular humanist wish to impose finite civil rights on the souls of men, equal Justice dictates that they are the first to have their finite civil rights enforced by the state and by the state removed, finished. The atheist and the secular humanist want unalienable human rights while imposing their finite and removable human rights on the souls of men. This injustice must be rectified and the whole truth be re-established and re-ratified.
    Jefferson also cites “ the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.” “ “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties”
    This statement alone is the response to the Obamacare’s HHS Mandate.
    .
    The Constitution of the United States
    Preamble
    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.
    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
    Now, I shall return to listen a second time.

  • I wish I had had this on my IPOD yesterday as I shoveled the driveway. No worries. Another snow storm is on the way.

A Twofer For the Klan

Tuesday, February 11, AD 2014

One of the more interesting figures in American public life is Justice Clarence Thomas:

 

Thomas spent his childhood in a place and time in which businesses and government services were legally segregated. In his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son,” he described his experience growing up as an African-American Catholic in Georgia during the Jim Crow era. “I was a two-fer for the Klan,” he said.

Thomas moved north from Georgia and graduated from Yale Law School in 1974. He went on to a successful judicial career that took him all the way to the Supreme Court. Thomas’ views on constitutional issues usually put him on the conservative side of the court, where he has penned opinions intended to rein in affirmative-action laws and overhaul a section of the Civil Rights Act that requires states with histories of discrimination to seek approval from the federal government before altering voting policies.

Throughout his career, Thomas said, he has experienced more instances of discrimination and poor treatment in the North than the South.

“The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites. The absolute worst I have ever been treated,” Thomas said. “The worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

As one of six Catholics on the court, Thomas also addressed the role his faith plays in his work as a justice.

“I quite frankly don’t know how you do these hard jobs without some faith. I don’t know. Other people can come to you and explain it to you. I have no idea,” he said. “I don’t know how an oath becomes meaningful unless you have faith. Because at the end you say, ‘So help me God.’ And a promise to God is different from a promise to anyone else.”

Go here to read the rest.  Thomas was raised by his cantankerous maternal grandfather Myers Anderson, a man with little education but who through hard work built a thriving business selling fuel oil and ice.  He worked Clarence and his brother liked rented mules, and imprinted on them the value of hard work, promising them that if they worked hard enough, and got an education, they could be anything they wanted to be, having nothing but scorn for the idea that white racism could stop them.  Thomas has said simply that his grandfather is the greatest man he has ever known.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to A Twofer For the Klan

  • Racism, or better put, prejudice against people with dark skin, is an industry today. Malcom X, Louis Farrakhan, Coleman Young, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, Marion Barry and others of that ilk make or made a good living off of racism. Should racism disappear, the hucksters I mentioned who are still living would have to find honest work.

    Clarence Thomas puts the lie to the Northeastern liberal elite, the bunch who consider themselves the best and the brightest – but really are not and never were. They hate his race and they hate his religion and they hate his worldview. When I worked in DC, I sensed an “air” of a sort that I can’t quite put in words. it wasn’t among my coworkers, but in the Post and in other media…that Washington was where the smarter people went to work and live and everyone else was lower class.

    Speaking of the Klan, I remember something my late grandmother told me. Grandma, one of three children of Polish immigrants, grew up in Greene County, Pennsylvania, which is the extreme southwest of the Commonwealth. She told me once that when she was a young girl, the KKK marched down her street with their robes and their burning crosses. If those idiots tried that on my street, I would drive a truck right at them. The Klan hates Catholics and Jews as much as they hate blacks.

  • What an impressive man! Thanks for that clip.
    Perhaps I am insulated somehow from it, but I don’t think we are all that racist, though we are certainly accused of it alot! Fear of racism or accusations of racism can be huge distractions from the underlying sins of pride and the rest (envy, gluttony, lust. anger, greed, sloth). It also seems that the 7 sins mights behind our constant accusations of racism… I liked what C Thomas said about hard to “get over” race while focusing on it!

  • Wow.

    I think it’s a sign of a weak leader, when he/she choose to play the race card or the social class card.

    It means their policies are so weak and exhausted, so they resort to bottom-of-the-barrel tactics.

    For example take Stalin or Hitler. And Che Guevara, the Muslim Brotherhood, Fidel Castro et al.

    But now more recently Barack Obama. The so-called “leader of the free world” and his pinning of the “haves” against the “have-not”. There is nothing like playing the good-old class warfare game.

    Justice Clarence Thomas sounds like an amazing man. A man of true substance.

  • I love that guy!

    And Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, too.

    I’d follow them around just to pick up some scraps of wisdom.

    Thanks.

  • theoldadam: A++

    Two points:

    Bull Connor was a member of the Democrat National Committee; all klansmen were Democrats – the “solid South.”

    And, atheists cannot be relied on/trusted in an extremity.

  • Some years back in Indianapolis – a city with an infamous connection to that horrid organization – the Klan staged a standard flag-and-banner, vitriol-spewing rally. However, instead of counter-demonstrations and contentious spectators playing into the hands of these evil nutcases, everybody simply stayed away. Nobody showed up except a few media types who were, doubtless, sadly disappointed in the display of sanity given by Naptown’s citizens.
    .
    There was a “diversity fair” across town that drew the same crowd it would have at any other time, but it, too was unremarkable.
    .
    The “Hooded Order” has not been back since.

  • It is good to hear a ‘government’ voice speaking from reason and faith.
    The liberal would-be elites are not contributing an iota of honesty to the people that follow them. As they speak of and force legalities (travesties to life and liberty), these elitists insulate themselves from the havoc they create. Racism has taken twists and turns through the encouragement of the highest oath-takers. Identifying ethnicities, to be optionally used, are part of every official form. In the name of justice, some courts politically aligned with the liberal agendas are becoming the thought police. Such is the case with the movie about the pres in 2016 in a NY court, as it was in a MA court which legalized alternative marriage without a popular vote. Last, look who is exempt from the ACA and is arming DHS.

  • Justice Clarence Thomas is a true Justice, the personification of the virtue of Justice.

  • Truer words never spoken : “these elitists insulate themselves from the havoc they create.” ( from Pat)

  • “Identifying ethnicities, to be optionally used, are part of every official form.”
    Thanks again Pat.

    This reminds me of a similar problem in the Church of institutionalizing racism by scheduling “separate but equal” masses and other Church activities.

  • Justice Clarence Thomas is a man of quiet dignity and reserve; his speech and conduct exemplify judicial temperament.

  • Dignity is not the word to describe the ‘party’ politicos during his confirmation to the Supreme Court. That was a horrible time when the supposed intellectual activity began to leave its natural home in the brain for the sake of furthering causes of innuendo and division, such as is rampant and virulent in today’s government – most recently in the NY governor disparaging the opinion of residents for being proponents of life (which as an issue at all is preposterous) and in the spendthrift executive branch threat to eliminate the republic’s governmental balance of power with a pen and phone without explaining the reason or need for doing so.

  • “Identifying ethnicities, to be optionally used, are part of every official form.”

    These days, there is usually a “prefer not to answer” or “other” choice. I’ve reached the point where I always choose these, and encourage you to do the same.

    Sad to say, ArchBalt sends one of these through the pews annually. I’ve been writing in “Italian”, but think I will change to “Roman Catholic”.

  • Pat: “and in the spendthrift executive branch threat to eliminate the republic’s governmental balance of power with a pen and phone without explaining the reason or need for doing so.”
    .
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
    .
    Obama gets to define “any undefined national emergency.” then continues to disenfranchise those elected to Congress, the voice of the people.

The Majority Opinion that Became a Dissent

Thursday, June 28, AD 2012

If you had told me before the day started that John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy would have penned differing opinions on the Obamacare case, and that I’d be siding with the latter’s opinion, I would have said that you were nuts. Alas, it appears that John Roberts is the new Anthony Kennedy.

Ed Whelan has speculated that Chief Justice Roberts changed his vote at the last minute, and therefore the dissenting opinion was originally the majority opinion. He has a follow-up post that posits another theory supporting that notion, which also explains how that could be logistically possible. Having now fully digested the dissenting opinion, I am just about 99 percent certain that John Roberts did indeed change his vote, and that the dissenting opinion was the majority opinion until the Chief Justice changed his mind.

Frankly, the dissent just doesn’t read like a dissent at all. As Whelan points out, the dissenting opinion repeatedly alludes to Justice Ginsburg’s opinion as the dissent. In fact, the dissenters barely alludes to the Chief Justice’s opinion at all until the very end. The final couple of pages are a scathing attack on the majority’s opinion, heretofore unmentioned. It certainly seems like the dissenting Justices felt jilted by the Chief Justice, thus the unusually harsh rhetoric of the final few paragraphs of the dissent. Another sign that the dissenters were in the majority comes on the second page:

Continue reading...

36 Responses to The Majority Opinion that Became a Dissent

  • I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts believes that he has secured peace in our time with his decision.

  • This is a brilliant and thoughtful post and I love it. But I couldn’t help but not the double meaning at the spelling here-

    “left at the alter by the Chief Justice”

  • I meant to write NOTE the double meaning!

  • Ha! Good catch anzlyne. That was unintentional, thus I edited the post.

  • Chief Justice Roberts = Neville Chamberlain
    Barack Hussein Obama = Adolf Hitler

    Nothing could be clearer.

  • Oh, but Paul Z., “alter” is perhaps MORE correct.

    😉

  • If Roberts is such a spineless jellyfish, he should not serve on any court, anywhere.

    Honestly, I feel hatred toward the man. And yes, I recognize that that is a terrible sin, and I am praying for the hate to go away. But at the moment, it is difficult for me to feel any other emotion for the man who shoved a knife into the back of the USA today. And when I think that he is a young man and will be Chief Justice until he dies or retires, I feel utter despair for our future (and yes, I know despair is also a sin). It’s funny – I frequently feel anger toward and contempt for Obama, but I don’t hate him. I recognize that he is following his own principles, twisted though they may be. But Roberts – a man who has apparently caved because he couldn’t stand the heat? His legacy? His rightful place will be next to Justices Taney (Dred Scott) and Holmes(the government has a right to sterilize the mentally handicapped because “3 generations of imbeciles are enough.”

    But, hey, on the upside, I’m sure Roberts will get lots of invitations to chi-chi G-town parties now!

  • Pingback: Catholic Blogosphere Reaction to Supreme Court Health Care Ruling | Big Pulpit
  • On the other hand, by returning the issue to the political sphere, Roberts has put it back where it belongs. Sure, I wanted the mandate struck down so I could spike the ball and gloat…but the reality is that if the mandate had been found unconstitutional then the liberals just would have brought it back under different guises at a later date. Heck, even if struck down you have to figure Obama would continue to implement it by regulatory fiat (DREAM Act, anyone?). Upon reflection, I wish we hadn’t even brought it to the courts – the proper place for this battle is in the court of public opinion. Either we can convince a majority to repeal ObamaCare, or we can’t. If we can, then we’ve won the war – if we can’t, then striking down this particular law would do no long term good.

    Take this, my friends, as a blessing – we are not challenged to work with a will and, with our trust given to God, do what we know is the right thing.

  • Think, for a moment, just how dead gun control is – sure, some court decisions were helpful but, at the end of the day, it was an awakened American people determined to preserve their right to bear arms which made the issue politically toxic…and now the Courts follow the people on the matter. That is how not just Obama Care but all manifestations of socialism must be defeated…

  • I am reminded of the story about a bird that did not fly south for the winter. Stuck in a barnyard, nearly frozen to the ground, accepting fate that nothing was worse and it would die. A cow walked by and dropped a load of “out-put” on the hapless bird. But the dung was warm and there were undigested seeds. The bird was warmed, ate and then started to sing. That was when a barn cat came along and started to dig. Happy to be free the bird sang and stretched. And was promptly killed and consumed by the cat.

    Moral of the story, not everyone that craps on you is your enemy, not everyone that gets you out of s@#% is your friend, and if you are buried and happy, keep quiet about it.

    I do not believe that Chief Justice Roberts is our “enemy” nor do I think he is another Chamberlain. It was left to the voters to remedy the action of this Act of Congress. Otherwise from now until the end of the USA there will be the constant court battles to undo what was done by a prior administration.

    It can be done, through the ballot box and our elected Representatives, not from appointed judges that many of whom owe more allegiance to a political ideology than to justice.

  • Ah, yours is the calmer, wiser take on things, Mr. Noonan. I was so bitterly angry today and felt so betrayed….I pray you are right.

    I am a Burkean conservative, and as such, am frequently disgusted with Republicans professing to hate big government and yet voting for big government as soon as they get nice offices in DC. I hope for and fully expect Romney and a GOP Congress to strike down Obamacare. If they don’t, well, I will be done with the GOP. We will end our days as slaves to the Almighty State and there is nothing the little people like me can do about it.

    A few months ago, in confession, a priest reminded me to put not my trust in kings – or politicians, or hopped up lawyers (which is what Roberts is)….Yes, he was right.

  • BTW, it takes a full 10 minutes before I can download TAC and probably another 5 before I can access the comments section. I have showered and blown-dried my hair in the morning- and then I return to my computer and find TAC is still not downloaded. I find it the slowest site in the Christian world 🙂 It is the number one reason why I rarely comment here- does anybody else have similiar difficulties?

  • I did worry about Roberts as I’ve been reading how he doesn’t want his court to look too political but I didn’t think he would actually go this far. It was like he was reaching for something to uphold this law & he found it in taxes. I’ve lost total respect for this man. We need healthcare reform but not this one. I’m a moderate conservative but I was very angry & I’m totally disliking Roberts right now as he changed America as we see it. Obama is changing this country & I won’t even recognize it if he remains president. I’m just sad.

  • Mark, it isn’t up to the Court to decide issues based on the politics of the situation. Roberts’ attempt to play John Marshall and get the Court out of a political jam was unnecessary. What exactly would have been the fallout if the Court struck down Obamacare? President Obama and the Democrats would have complained. So what? A majority of the population would have supported the outcome, and even if a majority did not that is irrelevant. As the dissenters correctly pointed out, the Chief Justice’s attempt to the get the Court out of politics only entangled it further. In the end, the Court made law. How is that an example of the Court returning the issue back to the political sphere. With this decision the Court became part of the political sphere.

    All that being said, I agree with what others have said in terms of dialing back our emotions. We are not in Nazi Germany, and the tanks aren’t going to start rolling into our Churches. This is a terrible defeat for the rule of law, and I think also a worrying sign that we’re still two votes away from repealing Roe. But we need to take it down a notch.

  • Donna, I don’t have any problems, but you are not the only person to notice that. We’ll look into it.

  • Indeed. Additionally I view this as a Pyrrhric victory for Obama, as this decision will be a millstone around his neck during the remainder of the campaign. Too many conservatives become disheartened too easily when there is every reason to think that this decision is a Godsend politically.

  • Don, you’re ever the optimist, which I admire. Of course, I always see a half-full glass. The rosy reaction is like finding good news in a recession by reading a headline: “Mafia forced to lay off 6 judges”

  • Another thing that irks me about the rationalization of this decision, as seen in Charles Krautahammer’s column:

    Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

    This is akin to George Bush avoiding the question of the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and letting the Courts decide. All three branches of the government have the equal authority and obligation to decide upon the constitutionality of legislation before them. It is an abrogation of duty, not a sign of political pragmatism, to simply punt the matter away.

  • I try not to be a pessimist or an optimist when it comes to politics Joe but to call ’em like I see ’em. Many conservatives were saying that the game was up when Obama got elected in 2008. 2010 demonstrated how out of touch that view was. American political history is a series of reactions and counter-reactions. Obama went too far to the Left, and he reaped a political whirlwind in 2010 and the same is in store this November.

  • I agree with Donald. The President has just been made a liar, at least on the subject of a tax increase (which was a large part of the objection to the ACA in the first place…who is going to bear the cost?). I saw an ABC News blog link this morning to the interview I which he absolutely rejected the notion that the individual mandate was a tax. Guess Mr. Constitutional Law missed that class.

    No, I think we need to give this a few days to unfold. The analyses I’ve read aside, I believe Justice Roberts may have given those who oppose the law exactly what they need to fit it… He avoided giving the President. White martyrdom on the subject, and he exposed the law for what it is: a massive tax increase on those least able to afford it.

  • TAC does load slowly – probably a side-effect of the litany of links on the side.

    Dick Morris is saying the same thing Krauthammer says, which will probably be the theme of many variations in weeks to come. The November’s gonna be a slugfest. Hopefully Holder’s out of the SecState chair so we don’t have Black Panther goon squads threatening polling places.

    Question – Supposing a GOP quash and concomitant numerical ability, what’s the chance/point/P&L for an attempted Constitutional amendment expressly forbidding Congress to tax non-activity? I would not know how to word it properly, but, could or should such a thing be considered?

  • Good article from Jonah Goldberg today. Ignore the misleading headline – he really takes Roberts to the woodshed.

    what’s the chance/point/P&L for an attempted Constitutional amendment expressly forbidding Congress to tax non-activity?

    Somewhere between slim and none. The GOP will almost certainly have legislative majorities in both Houses of Congress, but not enough to get such an amendment through.

  • “Politics and Culture from a Catholic Perspective?” I don’t think so. I am Catholic, but this blog ‘s authors and commenters certainly do not speak for me or, I suspect, for a majority of Catholics. Alhough I would have preferred a single-payer system, I agree with the purpose and intent of the ACA, and applaud the Supreme Court’s action. There will be no tax assessed against anyone if people who have enough income to pay federal income taxes do the individually and socially responsible thing and buy health insurance. The tax is imposed only on those who do not, and for whose healthcare either health providers or the rest of us end up paying.

  • Paul:

    If yesterday you were “just about 99 percent certain that John Roberts did indeed change his vote,” the following excerpts from yesterday’s dissents should make you just about 100 percent certain. Make note of the reference to “Chief Justice Roberts” in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and “we” in the joint dissent:

    From Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:

    In failing to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order, THE CHIEF JUSTICE disserves future courts.

    From the joint dissent:

    The dissent claims that we “fai[l] to explain why the individual mandate threatens our constitutional order.” Ante, at 35. But we have done so. It threatens that order because it gives such an expansive meaning to the Commerce Clause that all private conduct (including failure to act) becomes subject to federal control, effectively destroying
    the Constitution’s division of governmental powers. Thus the dissent, on the theories proposed for the validity of the Mandate, would alter the accepted constitutional relation between the individual and the National Government.

    For what it’s worth, I’m 100% certain the Chief Justice switched sides at the last minute, and I’m substantially certain he did so on the misplaced belief he was preserving the integrity of the Court by protecting it against further attacks of politicizing the judicial process. By switching at the last minute, he also gave insufficient time to what became the joint dissent to dismantle his holding that “commerce clause regulation of inactivity is unconstitutional but regulation by taxation of inactivity is constitutional” or his similarly contradictory position that, on the one hand, the penalty-for-inaction “tax” is not a direct tax because it is not akin to a Capitation which is easily susceptible to apportionment or a tax on personal property or real estate, but, on the other hand, we shouldn’t be worried that the government has just now been given the power to tax inactivity because the power to tax inactivity has been around from the founding as evidenced by . . . of course, the Capitation or poll tax which applies merely for being a citizen. I imagine with a little advance notice Justice Scalia could have put a few more barbs into the joint dissent or dissented separately.

  • I am Catholic, but this blog ‘s authors and commenters certainly do not speak for me or, I suspect, for a majority of Catholics.

    While I’m sure you have your finger on the pulse of the Catholic community at large, we’ll continue to express our opinions as our Catholic faith informs us to do.

    There will be no tax assessed against anyone if people who have enough income to pay federal income taxes do the individually and socially responsible thing and buy health insurance.

    Ah, the compassionate left in action. Nobody will be punished so long as everybody does what we demand that they do in the name of social justice. There is nothing particularly “Catholic” about such an attitude, but I’m sure you will go on believing that you are more Catholic than the rest.

    Fine then.

  • Hank: Good catch, and more evidence that Roberts did indeed change his mind, and fairly late in the game at that. And I agree fully with your take. Clearly Scalia and the rest were caught off guard, as evidenced by the the relative lack of attention the dissent paid to the Chief Justice’s opinion until the very end of the dissent. I’m sure Scalia would have torn into Roberts more than he did for his double-talk on the tax had he had sufficient time – note he only addresses the government as being sophists, and not the majority of the Court.

  • Paul,

    Good points but now there are two things:

    1. Obama and the Democrats have to run with this horrendously unpopular law still the law of the land.

    2. Obama and the Democrats can’t point to the Evil, Wicked, Nasty, Republican Supreme Court as the source of blame for what went wrong.

    Obama carries the ObamaCare millstone around his neck in to November and the Courts are out of the political fray. I actually kind of like this outcome.

  • Donna,

    A great calmness came over me as I took in the decision – all is well and its all going to be for the best. And, yes, TAC does load slowly.

  • yes mark of norwich “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well”

  • W F Aiken

    Would you regard a levy, confined to uncultivated land, as a tax or a penalty?

  • Would you regard a levy, confined to uncultivated land, as a tax or a penalty?

    At least that levy would be attached to property ownership; not to nothing, not to non-action. I am not saying it is a good thing, but at least there might be some reason behind it.

  • I don’t think the levy you mentioned is just.

  • “I don’t think the levy you mentioned is just.”

    Nor do I, but would it be a tax or a penalty?

  • God did not want His Chosen People to be governed by a king. God wanted the Israelite nation to be a nation of sovereign persons, ruled and governed by the Supreme Sovereign Being, disciplined by LOVE. Still, Israel insisted. God relented and gave them Saul, then David.
    George Washington had served two terms as President of the United States. When Washington refused a third term as president, the people wanted to crown him king. Washington absolutely refused. George Washington was truly disciplined by LOVE, a sovereign. As a sovereign, George Washington exemplified the true meaning of sovereignty for each and every person and our nation.
    Justice is predicated on intent. As the personification of Divine Justice, the perfect Justice of God, The Supreme Court for the United States of America is empowered by Divine Justice, to root out all corruption, all falsehood, all malevolence, any evil that would threaten the Liberty and the common good of each and every individual person, every citizen, every state and nation, for whom the Justices have taken an oath to preserve FREEDOM, through the United States Constitution.
    CJ John Roberts statement that it is not the Supreme Court’s job to correct our mistakes and /or crimes is simply Roberts reneging on his oath. Swallowed by atheism and secular humanism, Roberts aids and abets the establishment of these disordered aberrations as religion through which the FREEDOM of religion might be practiced by the sovereign persons who happen to be citizens, in spite of the fact that these aberrations have been thrown off by the plaintiffs, violate the Ninth Amendment, (the Ninth Amendment states that persons have rights not enumerated in the Constitution) and deny the freedom of conscience, the human being’s immortal soul, the human being’s rational soul. Without a rational soul man becomes a beast, a rapacious beast or a subject, a member of a herd to be driven and corralled. Man has already witnessed the violence and been subjected to inhumanities un-thought of several decades ago. To this John Roberts adds his imprimatur. “It’s not my job”
    Obamacare cannot be dealt with because it is not a law. Obamacare is tyranny, coercion and fraud, the establishment of a God-less society. Obamacare will have no new generation, only a new generation of flatliners.

  • Mary De Voe

    There is an inscription in the Chapelle Expiatoire in Paris, built by the Catholic community as an act of reparation for the murder of the Royal Family “in diebus illis non erat rex in Israhel sed unusquisque quod sibi rectum videbatur hoc faciebat.” – In those days, there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)

    In fact, the phrase, “there was no king in Israel” recurs four times in Judges(17:6, 18:1, 19:1 & 21:25) and each time it goes on to describe some disaster or act of wickedness.

E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

Tuesday, September 28, AD 2010

In a recent column Washington Post columnist, E J Dionne noted that the Tea Party movement is a great scam. Quite an indictment coming from the self described progressive Catholic who still thinks government can never be big enough and the Church should tell the faithful more about the teachings of the agnostic Saul Alinsky than that of 2,000 year old teachings of the Catholic Church. Dionne has made it his business to comment on all matter of politics and religion for quite some time. His partner in left wing chicanery is New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who never hesitates to go for the jugular.  Though she says he she comes from humble Washington DC roots, you would never know it by how she mocks those who really came from humble surrounding and never forgot it. She probably grew up with many Sarah Palin’s and Christine O’Donnell’s around her. Yet, I doubt she mocked many to their face as she gleefully does now to the backs of Palin and O’Donnell.

Dionne and Dowd seem to have it backwards, they don’t think citizens should voice their views about the fallacies of liberal Big Government, but they do believe everyone knows better than the divine about religion. This is quite common for liberals who often seem to think they are divine. Dionne and Dowd are part of a movement who thinks they should control government and religion, and those who disagree with them are often labeled as unintelligent; the worst sin as far as liberals are concerned. However, who is the unintelligent one? Big Government has never worked. It has only brought huge debt which has to be repaid by future generations. Individuals who go into debt face a series of tough measures. Yet Dionne and Dowd seem oblivious to this and advocate the same disastrous path for the government, the end result being tough measures for everyone.  In other words Big Government is a disaster that doesn’t work.

However, Big Government isn’t the only disaster Dionne and Dowd advocate. They want the Catholic Church to turn her back on its 2,000 year old teachings and embrace the Dictatorship of Relativism, so named by Pope Benedict XVI. Dionne and Dowd are happy to embrace dissident Catholics who espouse this sort of thinking. It seems Dionne and Dowd are more comfortable with the views of Marx, Alinsky and Freud than they are with Christ, St Paul, St Thomas Aquinas, St Joan of Arc and Pope Benedict XVI.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to E. J. Dionne & Maureen Dowd Are Playing With A Dangerous Fire

  • Apologies in advance: Top ten reasons to vote dem:

    10. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

    9. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

    8. I vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

    7. I vote Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

    6. I vote Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

    5. I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

    4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

    3. I vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.

    2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

    1. I vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my @$$ that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

  • T Shaw did you come up with this? If you did something tells me that this might show up across the internet. Who knows old EJ and Maureen might heartily approve, not realizing your satire (well at 2-10.)