It’s Wednesday, July 11th, 2018…but before we begin, can anyone explain The Left’s love affair with murdering the unborn?!?
Judging from the reaction of Progressives across the board to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t simply return the issue of abortion back to the individual states where it rightfully belongs, but would signal, as Nina Totenberg put it, borrowing a phrase from R.E.M., “the end of the world as we know it“.
Seriously: reasonable, legislative limitations on the wholesale slaughter of the unborn by a minority of states would presage the end of civilization? How, precisely…not metaphorically, but precisely…can that possiblybe?!?
Is it truly possible all our technological achievements, medical advancements, transportation infrastructure and vast store of scientific knowledge will instantly be erased if a 5-4 SCOTUS decision leaves it up to the individual states to determine whether a woman has the “right” to kill her baby?!?
Though they’d certainly like the gullible to believe it.
Ruminating over the fact, since Roe v. Wade, Harry Blackmun’s tortured legal illogic has indeed spelled the end of the world for over 60,000,000 human beings, we were struck by this story from the AP via FOX News:
“Two members of an Oregon church that shuns traditional medicine in favor of prayer and anointing the sick with oils pleaded guilty Monday to negligent homicide and criminal mistreatment in the death of their newborn daughter, who struggled to breathe for hours as family and friends prayed over her but did not seek medical care…”
It’s easy to forget, absent a Republican-led effort to ban partial birth abortion back in 2003 (an act Progressives also hailed as spelling the beginning of the end of abortion), this precious baby girl could have been legally assassinated up until the moment of her birth. Can it really come as a surprise legalized euthanasia is Progressives’ next goal?!?
Now, here’s The Gouge!
First up, in their rush to express an opinion formulated well in advance of The Donald’s announcement, the Women’s March tells us all we need to know about The Left’s collective refusal to give any SCOTUS nominee Trump might name anything resembling a fair hearing:
Pick a name…any name; the reaction would be the same.
Here’s the Editorial Board of the WSJ‘s thoughts on Trump’s nomination of…
“…Democrats will also claim that a new conservative 5-4 majority will mean the rollback of American rights from abortion to voting. Don’t believe it.
The change we expect would be a Court that returned to the role it played before the 1960s when the Justices became an engine of progressive policy. The American left is distraught because it fears losing the Court as its preferred legislature. A conservative Court won’t overturn liberal precedents willy-nilly. But we hope it will be inclined to let most political questions be settled where they should be in a democracy—by the political branches.
This still preserves for the Court a large role in protecting fundamental rights and the structure of the separation of powers that is a bulwark against tyranny. The Court has become far too embroiled in politics, which has undermined public faith in the law and Constitution.
We firmly believe that liberals have much less to fear from a conservative majority than they imagine. A genuinely conservative Court might even help progressives by liberating them to focus once again on the core task of self-government—persuading their fellow Americans through elections, not judicial fiat.“
Which is, of course, a non-starter, as it would require Dimocrats to abandon their divisive identity politics and actually represent the needs and desires of those not dependent upon Big Government.
Writing at his Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty comforts the concerned:
Jim went on to ask what inquiring mindswantto know:
What Do Voters in States with High-Stakes Senate Races Think?
The Susan B. Anthony List commissioned a poll of registered voters in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia, and asked voters, “As you may know, Justice Kennedy recently retired from the Supreme Court. The President will appoint a replacement and the U.S. Senate will vote on that person. Do you think Senator [Nelson, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heitkamp, or Manchin: depending on the state] should vote to confirm President Trump’s appointment to the Supreme Court?” (Note this poll is conducted before Kavanaugh was named.)
In Florida and Indiana, 56 percent of registered voters answered Yes. In Missouri, 57 percent of respondents said Yes, in West Virginia it was 59 percent, and in North Dakota it was all the way up to 68 percent.
As Astro would say, at least regarding the chances of these five Dims:
“…In effect, Mr. Durbin is admitting that a Supreme Court that limits itself to the law and Constitution—calling “balls and strikes,” as Chief Justice John Roberts put it during his own confirmation hearing—means a dead end for causes Democrats cherish but have given up trying to achieve through the democratic process, a k a passing legislation…”
In a related item, writing at NRO, John Fund wonders…
“…Since January 2017, the “resistance” to President Trump has succeeded in getting 22 injunctions against his actions on issues ranging from the “Dreamers” to sanctuary cities and transgender policy in the military.
Justice Thomas says their recent explosion calls for a rethinking of their validity because “no statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions.” He concludes that, as used today, they “boi[l] down to a policy judgment” about how judges define the limits of a president’s power.But that judgment is supposed to spring from the Constitution, not from the preferences of a black-robed figure.
Even after the Supreme Court made its definitive ruling in the 16-month-old travel-ban case, the “Resistance” made clear that it hasn’t given up. On the very day the Court ruled, a total of 16 states and the District of Columbia sued to stop President Trump over his border-security measures. The suit was “forum-shopped” so it would be heard by a federal judge in the distinctly anti-Trump Seattle area.
In another ruling that came down the same day the Supreme Court acted on the travel ban, a federal district judge in California overturned an executive order Trump issued June 20: Parents crossing the border (ILLEGALLY!!!) with their migrant children must have regular phone calls with their children and be reunited with them within 14 days, the judge ruled. Parents with children younger than 5 must be reunited by this coming Tuesday.
The Department of Health and Human Services has been tasked with reuniting the children. Alex Azar, the HHS secretary, has said that he will comply with those artificially imposed deadlines, but at a cost: Some of the “parents” being reunited with children are actually in league with smugglers, he noted.In a conference with reporters last Friday, Azar said:
Proper and careful vetting for child safety is essential…Two purported parents were identified in ICE criminal background checks as having criminal history that were inconsistent with child safety. For example, these purported parents had a history of charges of child cruelty, rape, and kidnapping based on information revealed by ICE…[But] we will comply even if those deadlines prevent us from conducting our standard or even a truncated vetting process.
It is madness that a single federal district court judge can impose such an arbitrary deadline covering the entire country and not have his decision reviewed for weeks or months. No one wants children separated from their parents, whether they are U.S. citizens or migrants, (Uhhh…beg to differ, but WE, along with a majority of our fellow Americanscertainly do!) but many of these largely Central American parents bringing their kids across the border have made an unfortunate choice.
As Hans von Spakovsky, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, points out, such parents passed through Mexico and other nations that have their own generous asylum laws. By not seeking asylum in those countries, they are sending a strong signal that they are illegallyentering the U.S. to better their economic conditionrather than to escape persecution.
Of course, something must be done to clean up our archaic immigration laws that make it impossible to issue regulated work visas for legitimate job seekers (such as we had until the 1960s) while also making it almost impossible to send back people who are abusing the system. Congress has failed to act, but the solution is not to have a single, unelected federal district judge make determinations on what our nationwide immigration policy should be.
If the confirmation hearings and debate about President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee can bring some of those issues forward, we might have the beginnings of a more rational debate on just what legitimate power judges have and how some are currently abusing it.“
As the first Chief Justice so accurately opined:
Next up, writing at Politico, David Greenberg reminds his comrades…
“…Trump and his followers have already shown their contempt for the practices and gestures that help us live amicably with our ideological opposites.(Unlike Obama, of course!) Joining Trump in the project of trashing the unwritten rules of public conduct won’t change his policies or governing style. But it will betray our own values and make it harder, once he’s gone, to reconstitute a decent, humane politics. We have nothing to gain from the eradication of a politics-free zone, from a war of all against all that greenlights once-verboten behaviors and permeates once-private spaces.
Besides, as the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s show, the outrageous and obnoxious antics of the militant left ended up hurting their cause. The taunting of public figures isn’t well remembered, and neither will history long record June’s showdown at the Red Hen. But insofar as these actions stem from a determination toscore political points by violating civil norms, they—and the repellent and violent methods of extreme protesters more generally—engender a backlash and alienate allies. By 1972, we should recall, a majority of Americans had come to oppose the Vietnam War, but greater numbers opposed the antiwar movement. Nixon cannily positioned himself as upholding law and order—a helpfully ambiguous phrase that lumped together the threats of rising crime, urban riots and rowdy left-wing activism. His invocation of the “silent majority” aimed to bring together those who were put off by the noisy, disruptive and politically extreme protests. Trump, who has openly borrowed Nixonian terms like “law and order” and “silent majority,” has already been using the confrontations with his administration’s officials to shift the discussion from his immigration policies and onto the left’s behavior…”
Greenberg’s bio describes him as a professor of history and media studies at Rutgers; but given his writing, he’s more a professor of revisionist history. Trump is combatting ILLEGALimmigration, not legal immigration.; the two are no way synonymous. And the shouting down and assaults on Conservative speakers pre-dates Trump ever announcing his run for the Oval Office.
All of which begs the question…
Since we’re on the subject of scurrilous attacks on noteworthy Republicans, asFOX News reports…
“A group of former Ohio State wrestling coaches is defending embattled Republican Rep. Jim Jordan amid reports that he failed to report sexual abuse against students by a team doctor when the lawmaker coached at the university more than two decades ago. “What has been said about Jim Jordan is absolutely wrong,” the coaches, which include former OSU wrestling head coach Russ Hellickson, said in a joint statement Monday.
“We all worked on the wrestling coaching staff during Jim’s tenure at The Ohio State University. None of us saw or heard of abuse of OSU wrestlers. The well-being of student-athletes was all of our concern. If we had heard of any abuse, we would have spoken up.”…”
“…The story has generated even more national media coverage than one might expect because treating the wrestling team was among Strauss’ responsibilities and for part of his time at the university, one of the assistant wrestling coaches was Jim Jordan, who is now a conservative U.S. representative seeking to become Speaker of the House.
For Mr. Jordan, it was his first job out of college and he remained on the wrestling staff until the age of 30. Given all the administrators in athletics and medicine—not to mention the many head coaches—who dealt with Strauss over his 20 years on the Ohio State faculty, some may wonder why so much media attention has focused on what a young wrestling assistant might have known about the alleged groper…”
Also, how does a college wrestler…or any other male collegiate athlete, let a doctor get away with fondling his privates?!? We’re not talking 12-year-old female gymnasts; these are guys who could have wrapped this pervert up like a pretzel. We played varsity lacrosse at Navy for four years, and due to injuries suffered as a sophomore, had both our ankles taped daily for three of them. And we can guarantee you had any of the trainers placed their hands on our genitals we wouldn’t have been shy about publicizing the incident…probably as a result of being charged with first-degree assault.
Sorry, but for our money, Jordan is completely innocent…which is more than we can say for the athletes who claim to have put up with such treatment without a peep…or a double-leg takedown.
Then there’s today’s installment of the What Could Go Wrong?!? segment, brought to us by FOX News, and this just in from the Land of Fruits and Nuts:
“Stockton, California is set to become the first city in the nation to embark on an experiment of Universal Basic Income, paying 100 residents $500 a month without any conditions. The program’s purpose is to eventually ensure that no one in the city of 300,000 people lives in poverty. The receivers of the cash will be able to spend the money on anything they wantwithoutany strings attached.
…The city, which was once known as America’s foreclosure capital, has recently fallen on hard times, with one-in-four residents living below the poverty line and the median household income is nearly $8,000 lower than the national median. The city also racked up millions in debt from expensive development projects that led to the city’s bankruptcy in 2012.
“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.
Luckily, the experimental program won’t deplete the city’s coffers as it benefits from financial backing by wealthy Silicon Valley moguls…”
Money for nothing…with no strings or work requirements attached. Gee,…we seem to recall someone trying that particular solution to poverty…
…before! But hey, what could go wrong?!?
Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side:
Finally, we’ll call it a day with the Why Proper English Matters segment, courtesy of this recent headline featured at FOX News which had us wondering…
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.