Trump supporters of all stripes were praising to the hilt
the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh on Monday evening after his brief acceptance
speech in the East Room of the White House.
I don’t know Kavanaugh and maybe people like Laura Ingram are right when
they say he’s a stellar choice.
I just remember the powers that be in the Republican Party
said pretty much the same thing about Justice Roberts, who when given the
chance, twisted himself into a pretzel to find cause to leave Obamacare in
place, redefining a government run health care program a “tax.” Now we are told that it was Kavanaugh who
came up with this brilliant concept.
Life Site News reported a story, which included information
from Edith Roberts at SCOTUS blog (which I know nothing about so can’t say what
I think of what they report) that said,
“Roberts called Kavanaugh’s position in Garza v. Hargan,
about whether illegal immigrant minors have the right to a
government-facilitated abortion on U.S. soil, ‘conservative” but noted he “did
not go as far as one of his colleagues.’ ”
This comment was in reference to a case involving a minor
illegal immigrant who while in custody requested an abortion paid for by the
U.S. government.
Roberts wrote:
“Kavanaugh wrote
a panel decision vacating a district-court order that required the government
to allow the teen to leave the detention facility to obtain the abortion; the
panel imposed an additional waiting period to give the government time to
obtain a sponsor. The en banc court reversed. Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that
the en banc ruling was “ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for
unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate
abortion on demand.”
In these remarks, I find a ray of hope, but it is only
hope at this point and falls short of total confidence. I see in this phrase “a constitutional
principle as novel as it is wrong” a person willing to speak the truth and
recognize error, calling it what it is. What
I don’t know at this point, and who can really, is whether Kavanaugh is a man
who just loves to argue the impossible in the tall weeds of our legal system or
if he has a calm and rational understanding of right versus wrong that will
prove to exist when the difficult choices are placed before him. I want a justice, rare though he may be, who
can look at a case, a situation, a concept, a premise and say THAT is right or
THAT is wrong.
What I don’t want is a judge who just tries to make the
most people happy by saying things that sound good and make sense to the fool
hearty among us.
What a load of double speak. Who cares what you "feel."
We want to know what is without you making it up.
|
Overturning Roe v. Wade is going to take more than just
pulling another rabbit out of the hat.
We will need justices who can say this law is “based on a principle as
novel as it is wrong” and never mind the fallout. Oh, there will be plenty of hemming and
stammering around for a compromise to keep everyone happy, prevent a civil war,
and curb the riots and burning of cities that very well could occur, but what
we can’t settle for after nearly fifty years of waiting for sanity to return is
a ruling that ends up not settling the argument.
When I first heard someone say, “We need to return this
issue to the states,” I couldn’t understand what that would solve. The United States is a group of 50
experiments in government and that’s a good thing. Generally states and their legislators look
at each other and observe what is working and what is not, what is sensible and
what is not, what is disastrous and what is not, and they tend to follow suit
with the best ideas.
This is what getting ahead of your skis
looks like.
|
People are bailing out of California now because of the
lawlessness and stupid regulations there.
They are flocking to other states with more favorable laws. New York is losing residents and so is
Connecticut because of their ridiculous taxes and social welfare programs. We may never get state laws that perfectly
mirror what the Catholic Church teaches, but surely we can come close in a few,
which will set a new standard for the country at large. The problems Roe v. Wade created and what it
has meant for all of us won’t just disappear even when it is overturned, which I believe it will be. It will have to be slowly unraveled, state by
state, prayer by prayer, sermon by sermon, statute by statute, and example by
example. The morally degraded condition
we find ourselves in today didn’t happen overnight and we won’t recover without
working at it over time.
We may see in the future an Electoral College map very
different from what it is today.
Sparsely populated states today may become filled with like minded
people when the state they live in has failed to adopt moral laws that respect
the life of all persons, born and unborn alike. Over time people have flocked in great numbers
to different regions mostly for economic reasons. We can be sure where
there is God and where He is honored, there will be prosperity. So if you think this nation is divided now,
just wait. To change the nation we have
to change the behavior. To change the
behavior we have to stop enabling evil to exist. To end the enabling we have to change the
law. To change the law we must stay
alert, be informed, vote, and last but not least by any means, we must
continue to pray. Pray without ceasing.
Learn from history. Pass an abolition amendment before the civil war this time.
ReplyDelete