News that I missed courtesy of The Babylon Bee:
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats are lamenting after Trump revealed his nomination to take Justice Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court: Amy Coney Barrett. Experts say that Amy Coney Barrett will set women’s rights back approximately 6000 years since Judge Barrett is one of those weird Catholics who “actually believe all that stuff.” The greatest fear, according to 95% of people with purple hair, is that she will take away everyone’s sacred right to kill their own children in abortion.
“What will we do without abortion?” said Peg Butterwiggles, one of the women protesters interviewed outside the Supreme Court. “Without abortion, women may have to settle for throwing their careers away by having seven kids and then sitting on the seat of the most powerful court in the land!”
Progressive leaders are worried that Amy Coney Barrett serving on the Supreme Court may send the wrong message to little girls around the country that a full and meaningful life is actually possible without Planned Parenthood.
“Look how happy and powerful she looks,” said Butterwiggles. “It’s disgusting! Everyone knows it’s literally impossible to have a life worth living unless you kill all your kids to please the CEO of your supply chain company in order to have a healthy 401K!”
Prominent intellectual Lena Dunham expressed similar concerns saying, “This is literally The Handmaid’s Tale. We’re all about to get oppressed by men who want to marry us and give us children and provide for our every need until we die together holding hands in a hospital bed! Gross!”
Go here to read the rest.
There is a poignant aspect to today’s opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. “It is the dimension” of authority, they say, to “cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Ante, at 24.
There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.”
It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissent, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (conclusion)
The Supreme Court should abrogate Roe vs. Wade on the basis that it was a legislative not a judicial matter. The individual state voters should decide for themselves.
Hyperbole is a tool employed in drama and literature. It has no place in logic.
From NR, Kevin D. Williamson, Our main problem is government is too control and powerful. A major disaster for the Republic is the left and its establishment GOP co-conspirators deploy judges as superlegislators to impose their nightmare visions on America. Opposing them are [we the] people that believe government should be limited and that judges are constrained to opine (opinion is not truth – Plato) and rule based on what the Constitution and the law actually say.
A nation that is ruled by judicial fiat is not a republic. Its people are subjects to oligarchs.
Yes, it is always about abortion with the Left.
I am reminded often of a story I once heard about Ven. Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who, it is said, at one time during a plane trip declined to have his lunch because it was Lent. A young woman sitting next to him also told the flight attendant she would pass on lunch, which prompted the Archbishop to ask if she also was observing the Lenten fast. She replied, “No, I am a witch and I am fasting for abortions.”
Unfortunately I have been unable to find this anecdote in any primary source on Archbishop Sheen. It was told by Father John Corapi during his Catechism series on EWTN, prior to his public fall from grace. That doesn’t mean it is not true, of course, but it would be better to have it straight from Abp. Sheen.
In any case, the point is well taken, I believe. The viciousness and hate spewed forth by the pro-aborts against all pro-life figures, and lately with especial fervor against both Trump and his SCOTUS nominees, seems to me quite likely to be of demonic origin. Remember the wordless banshee-like screeching that occurred at one (or more?) of the early D.C. demonstrations against Trump? The same thing happened this past week when the President and the First Lady went to pay their respects to the late Justice Ginsburg. In addition to the juvenile chanting there was, from the time the Trumps first appeared, a screeching wail emanating from the crowd, er, mob. It was actually frightening to hear on both occasions.
This sort of behavior is one of the main reasons why I believe there should be no committee hearings on the Barrett nomination. Lindsey Graham is a fool if he goes forward, as he has thus far said he will do, to give the Democrat lunatics another stage on which to vilify this woman and her family in defense of their unholy sacrament of abortion.