Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘SCOTUS’

Thousands of abortion-rights activists gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the Court announced a ruling in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case on June 24, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health overturns the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade case and erases a federal right to an abortion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (Chip Somodevilla, 2022 Getty Images)

With the release of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision on Friday, June 24, 2022, the reign of the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in all 50 states was overturned.

This was a decision Christians have long hoped for but one that at times seems far from ever coming to pass.

A great deal has been written on this topic over the past two days, and it is not my intention here to recap all of it.  But despite the volume of commentary about abortion, there are, I think, some important topics that are touched on but rarely, if they are discussed at all.  It is to these topics that I now turn.

Dobbs v. Jackson Does Not Outlaw Abortion

The Supreme Court’s decision does not outlaw abortion in America.  What it does is remove the Constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion, a right not found in the Constitution at all, but one invented by the Court in 1973. 

When the Constitution was written, the intention of the framers was to establish a federal government of enumerated powers.  That is, the Constitution spelled out in detail the powers of the federal government.  Apart from these enumerated powers, the federal government had no authority.  The 10th Amendment puts it this way, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” 

The logic here is the same as the logic behind the Regulative Principle of Worship.  God alone tells us in his Word how he is to be worshipped.  If the Bible does not specifically sanction a worship activity, that activity is prohibited.  In like fashion, if the Constitution does not specifically spell out a governmental function as belonging to the federal government, that function is prohibited to it, and is, “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Following this line of thinking, we need to ask ourselves, does the Constitution have anything to say about abortion?  This answer is, no it does not. Writing in Liberty Defined, Ron Paul noted,

[T]he Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.  There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.  Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

Paul, Liberty Defined, 2

Those who believe the Supreme Court should ban all abortion in America likely are disappointed by the Dobbs ruling.  For example, a tweet from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) read, “Following the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a patchwork of state laws means abortion access will vary widely depending on where someone lives.”  But what some would call a “patchwork” is simply the result of our federal system of government.  As much as Christians would like to see abortion banned in all 50 states, that is probably not a possibility at this time.  Some areas of the nation take a more biblical view of abortion, and some will be less Christian in their thinking. 

While Christians can pray and work for the day when abortion is banned in all 50 states, we can receive with thanks the Court’s ruling that holds out the promise that abortions will now be banned or severely restricted in some parts of the nation.

Read Full Post »

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a non-tax-deductible donation to support the work of Lux Lucet

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Read Full Post »

Elizabeth Warren expresses her displeasure at the thought of women not being able to kill their unborn children. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Last week when someone leaked the Supreme Court’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, many commentators, including this author, viewed this leak to rally the troops and an attempt to intimidate the justices into withdrawing their support for the decision.   The actions or inactions on the part of highly placed people over the past few days have done nothing to diminish this suspicion.   

Of course, we don’t know for sure who leaked the draft opinion or their motives for doing so.  But given the shrieking that started immediately on the pro-abort side, and which seems to be picking up momentum, it’s reasonable to speculate that stirring up the mob to bully the court was the intent.

Recent history also supports this notion.  Think back just two years to the Black Lives Matter/Antifa rioting.  Those riots were largely successful in advancing the woke agenda in schools, universities, and corporations and in helping to remove Donald Trump from power and installing the illegitimate Biden Regime in the White House.

Force works, as John Robbins noted.  That’s why tyrants use it.    

   

Read Full Post »

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, if you don’t believe Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the very picture of physical health, you’re a nutjob, a wingnut, and an internet conspiracy theorist.

The piece by Eli Rosenberg and Abby Ohlheiser cites WaPo veteran Robert Barnes as being amazed that anyone, ANYONE!, would doubt that RBG is anything other than hale and hearty.

“A falsehood has been spreading in dark corners of the Internet that Ginsburg is dead,” write Rosenberg and Ohlheiser. The article then goes on to take shots are fringe “right wing Internet culture,” the sort of fringe culture that dares to raises doubts about official narratives put forth in the MSM.

The article even attempts to pin on the egregious fake news reports from a few weeks back – fake news reported on CNN and in WaPo itself about how MAGA hat wearing students from Covington Catholic High School were supposedly responsible for harassing a Native American Vietnam Veteran at the Indigenous People’s March in Washington D.C. – on independent journalists on Twitter.

Yes, we’re to believe that the mighty WaPo was taken in by “Two anonymous Twitter accounts,” that it was just following these anonymous accounts’ lead when it wrote about the “racist” actions of the high school students, and that it is in no way responsible for pushing a false narrative by publishing stories with headlines such as this: ” ‘Opposed to the dignity of the human person’: Kentucky Catholic dioceses condemns teens who taunted vet at March for Life.” If that’s true, then WaPo’s an even more pathetic joke of a newspaper than I thought.

But perhaps there’s a method to WaPo’s lame attempt to lay the blame on Twitter for their editorial mistake, they, along with a number of other news organizations and individuals, have been served a legal hold notice by the lawyer representing the students in anticipation of a possible lawsuit.

But what’s really odd about this piece from WaPo is its complete lack of evidence that RBG is, in fact, alive. There are no recent photos of her out in public. There are no videos. There are no quotes of any recent public statement from the judge.

The only “proof” offered to readers is Robert Barnes’ report that he saw RBG at a public performance, where, conveniently, we are told that “Photos were not allowed.”

Once you strip out the article’s rant on independent internet journalists, what you have is a very obvious appeal to authority. The fallacious argument runs thus, You have to believe that RBG is alive and well, because veteran WaPo reporter and editor Robert Barnes said so.

For my part, I don’t pretend to know the status of RBG’s physical health. It may be that she’s hale and hearty. Perhaps she’s alive but is seriously impaired, physically, mentally or both. It may be that she’s shuffled off this mortal coil.

The disappearance of Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the public eye is no small matter. Americans have a right to know whether government officials, elected or appointed, are capable of carrying out the duties of their office. Raising questions about Ginsburg’s physical fitness for office is not conspiracy theory, it’s a matter of national security.

If she’s healthy enough to serve as a judge, this is easy enough to prove. Let her make a public appearance and remove all doubt. If her health prevents her from sitting on the bench to hear arguments, the American people need to know this. Further, if this is the case, judge Ginsburg has an obligation to resign her post and allow the Senate to confirm a new judge in her place.

If judge Ginsburg is dead, then those who are hiding this fact are committing one of the greatest frauds in American political history and need themselves to be held accountable.

But whatever the case may be, WaPo’s readers, and Americans generally, deserve better than condescending reports about the health of a Supreme Court justice that tell them in so many words, just shut up and believe us already.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: