Shot in the Dark

Hysteria

Joe Doakes from Como park emails:

I’m seeing hysteria on the Left. “Roe was overturned. Do you know what this means? It means gay marriage, contraception, inter-racial marriage, affirmative action – all of them are at risk!” Thus far, Conservatives have been trolling Liberals using the same line Liberals always use on us: “Oh, no, we aren’t going after those, this decision was strictly limited to one issue.” Time to take the gloves off.

The Supreme Court’s legal basis for Roe v. Wade was the notion that somewhere in the emanations of the penumbra of rights protected by the Constitution is a right to privacy. The Supreme Court abandoned privacy as the legal basis for abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, substituting the notion that abortion is a liberty protected by the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The Supreme Court went further in the gay marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which caused Justice Scalia to write: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Once the Supreme Court decided it could invent new rights based on vague notions of privacy, the meaning of the universe, and personal expression of identity rather than historical analysis or constitutional precedent, state laws which had stood for 200 years were tossed out. But now that the Supreme Court has regained its senses, Liberals are correct that all the fake ‘rights’ which were grounded on fanciful bases are at risk. As they should be. The Supreme Court is not a place to impose through litigation the policies which you could not have achieved through legislation. If gay marriage, contraception, inter-racial marriage, affirmative action, and partial-birth abortion are rights which the nation wants protected by the Constitution instead of being protected by state legislatures, there’s a perfectly good amendment process which has been used more than two dozen times already. Go to it. Knock yourselves out.

Yes, we’re coming for your made-up ‘rights.’ We’re coming after all the abominations imposed on us over the last 50 years, taking back the power usurped by the Supreme Court and returning it to the people in the states, where it belongs. Power to the people! Why should we apologize for that?

Joe Doakes

Joe has anticipated one of my “Avery Librelle” plays in one act.

Posted

in

, ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “Hysteria”

  1. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Perhaps it’s not the most profound insight, but one thing the US seems to suffer from is a fetish-like obsession with the constitution and its literal interpretation. I guess this constitutional literalism is coming from the extreme US evangelicals with their literal interpretation of the bible. I fear as long as the US cannot wean itself away from this medieval mindset, it has lost its ability to adapt.

    You cannot interpret literally a constitution written over 200 years ago or think that you can somehow read the minds of those who wrote it. And even if you could, times have changed and so have the morals and attitudes of todays society.

  2. TKS Avatar
    TKS

    Yeah the tyranny of Presentism would be so much better,.

  3. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    The Constitution is the same in Texas and New Jersey, so the issue is not actually the Constitution.

    The issue is the separation of Church and State, which is more robust in some states rather than others. In New Jersey they are distinct. In Texas the division is muddled, not because of any Federal laws, but simply because of local beliefs.

    That is why people will talk about State’s rights. As if a woman has different rights in different states, or as if biology just works differently in Texas.

    Also, if you look at that map of the states who have protected access to abortion, they are pretty close to the same as the states who were abolitionist, and the states banning abortions have a heavy overlap with the states who supported slavery. Many have had issues with Civil Rights ever since then. Keep in mind, the Founding Fathers in slave owning states ran the risk of becoming slaves themselves if they went bankrupt, and women in some states could originally vote, so things have changed a great deal over time.

    The concept of equality is simply stronger in some places than others.

  4. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Suppose we feel our present rulers are tyrants who impose their will on us ‘for out own good’ without regard to what we, the people, want. Suppose we want to form a new nation, one composed of units of government small enough to be responsive to local concerns, all lightly covered by an overlay government which will resolve disputes between the local units, issue a common currency, defend the entire nation from foreign attack, deliver the mail, etc. Let’s say we want to strictly limit the power of the overlay government, so we write a document which details the limited powers given to overlay and reserves to the local units all other powers. And if things change, we provide a mechanism to amend the limitation document to give more powers to the overlay. And to explain the overlay idea to the public, we issue a series of pamphlets detailing our concerns and our proposals.

    Now along comes E, who says we cannot understand that limitation document. It’s too old, we can’t imagine what the drafters were thinking, people’s attitudes have moved on. Throw it out. No limitation on the overlay. Let the rulers of the overlay do whatever they want to do.

    In other words, replace the Constitution with somebody like King George III and his colonial governors, who will impose their will for the betterment of the masses regardless of how the masses feel about it, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.

    Honestly, E, I don’t think you understand the American Idea at all.

  5. Ian Avatar
    Ian

    US seems to suffer from is a fetish-like obsession with the constitution and its literal interpretation

    Translation: I would rather we be a nation of “men”, not a nation of laws.

  6. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    I thought I was a genius for taking a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3%. I’m 22 years into it so I’m paying hardly any interest. But I just got a letter from my lender raising my rate.

    Can’t do that? The lender says we cannot interpret literally a document written so long ago. We can’t read the minds of the bankers who signed it. And even if we could, times have changed and so have the morals and attitudes of todays’ society. Plus interest rates are rising because of Putin’s war in Ukraine so new borrowers are paying more than I am, which isn’t equitable. The concept of equity is stronger than any limitations on the lender’s power.

    Same with the Constitution. Doesn’t apply anymore. Not equitable. Too old.

    Huh. Bummer. Here I was feeling smart but it turns out I was actually dumb. If I had rented, I’d have lived the last two years free, courtesy of Governor Walz and his Democrat buddies. Maybe next time . . . .

  7. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Regarding Emery’s comment about separation of church and state, the actual Constitutional phrase is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Contrary to his assertion, the free exercise of religion appears to be much more robust and uninhibited in states run by conservatives than in states run by liberals.

  8. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    But I just got a letter from my lender raising my rate

    That seems illegal. I knew people back in the 80s when interest rates were high who had fixed rate mortgages from the 70 at, say, 3%. Their rates weren’t raised. It seems like there’s something missing here.

    Emery’s comment about separation of church and state

    You’re correct, bike. The left has always misunderstood this. And the 10th Amendment. And the Commerce Clause… etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.