The Coming Judicial Unswitching

     With the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the first truly pro-Constitution majority, since the infamous “switch in time that saved nine” during the Presidency of FDR, now controls the Supreme Court of the United States.

     Of course, like all Supreme Court line-ups, the current configuration will not last forever, and there is always the possibility of a “conservative” justice becoming more moderate over time. Still, while it will likely take decades to undo all the damage done since the “switch in time”, the invented “rights” and other examples of political policy trumping the Constitution, common law, and precedent are endangered at the same time that actual declarative and restrictive rights, as well as Constitutional limitations, can be reasserted.

     It is telling, then, how much Progressives in the news media are panicking. What was once their Ace in the Hole to push their agenda despite people not democratically supporting it, is such a threat that they want it outright abolished (despite the fact that Article III of the Constitution specifically invests a supreme court with the judicial power of the United States).

     Slate, for example considers the Supreme Court to be a “historically regressive and presently expendable institution“. And further invokes FDR’s call to “save the Constitution from the Court” to justify “waging war” against the Supreme Court.

     Vox.com outright calls for abolishing the Supreme Court while ironically stating:

“If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system.”

     It is hard to tell, at this point, if they are being disingenuous or if they really believe that the Supreme Court hasn’t been used to push a Progressive agenda through a long Gramscian march through Supreme Court rulings and new precedents.

     They call for junking the independence of the Judicial branch as well as the adversarial nature of American courts and all the common law that goes with that, in order to implement a “‘dialogic’ process”, or other “constitutional designs”, where the court doesn’t have the final say and Congress can just say “LOL whatev” keep on doing what it wants to do, no matter how Unconstitutional those actions.

     We get it. The Progressive Left has always wanted to destroy the Constitution and everything that our jurisprudence stands for. They though they had a monopoly and could wreck it from the inside via boiling the proverbial frog. Instead they face the real possibility of not only a recourse to the Constitution, common law, and the full breadth of precedence going back to before the foundation of the American colonies themselves, but of a vengeful Right using the weaponized courts in the same way that the Left had used them.

     That mask has slipped and it is not pretty.


This entry was posted in Gun Rights, Progressives, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Coming Judicial Unswitching

  1. avatar Joseph dagostino says:

    One of the radio commentators had a great point. The UK doesn’t have problems with abortion because they passed a LAW. The US never did and any restrictions at all have been challenged.

  2. avatar Mike-SMO says:

    Yeah, but…..

    If Roe is over-turned, the legal reply will be a stronger arguement based on the 9th Amendment (Unenumerated Rights) and/or a 1st Amendment claim of freedom of religion since most opposituion to abortion is based on religious belief.

    Also, Roe may be “protected” by “Establishment” interests since the rather inelegant Roe decision is based on “privacy” and no one wants to be waving the “privacy” flag in front of the peasants. The social media are already struggling against EU privacy regulations. Many other businesses and agencies would be unhappy to loose free access to individual data without explicit permissions or a warrant.

    But, there is also the 2nd Amendment for those who might wish to challenge a woman’s right to choose.

    My late Wife’s medical conditions are a long story but well illustrated by the murder of Ms. Savita Halapanavar in Ireland by members of the Cult of the Magic Belly Fairy who were pretending to be physicians. In this Bastion of the Faithful where I have been living, no hospital would allow a tubal ligation for my Wife due to the presence of that same cult. I promised to ensure her proper care.

    Decades later, when “abortion” was no longer a relevant concern, she was in the hospital on a July 1 [beginning of the academic year} when a white coated puppy darted in to show how it was done. I said, “That is not right”. My wife said, “That isn’t what my physician said. NO!” The white coated puppy laid hands on Her. The next thing I remember was having the new-be doc by the throat high on the wall. I was about to “snap in” and crush the twerp’s larynx to stop the screaming when I was hit by the defensive line of “Team White”.

    We can reasonably discus “funding” for abortion, but “you” don’t get to choose medical care for any of the women I care for {Grand-daughter, daughters-in-law, or beloved female friends]. Their choice, not “yours”. Be advised, I am so old that “Life in Prison” is meaningless. I will probably not survive the trial and appeals, if I even survive the fire-fight.

    Even with modern medical care, a pregnancy is probably the most dangerous and life-threatening process that a woman will experience. Her choice; not yours. Oh, as an aside [according to the priest]; if a soul, and no birth means no sin and a free ride to the place I will never see. Since miscarriages are so common, that seems only “fair”.

    I realize that repeated abortions due to a lack of birth control is medically dangerous and really crude. Even so, not “your” choice. Friends wanted another child inspite of several failed pregnancies. They finally went with a physician who felt that he could deal with the problems but only if he greed to perform an abortion if the pregnancy became dangerous (preclampsia, etc). “No-way,” I would have argued, but not my choice, and certainly not “your” choice.. [He’s in grad school, now.]

    Maybe if there is another cycle through the courts, the pro-choice side will find decent lawyers who have actually read the Constitution. I would prefer to spend the time that I have left with free access to sun, wind and, family, but if you try to kill one of mine…..

    Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *