ShareThis

A vehicle for venting on philosophy, religion, and the general state of things. Proprietor: C. W. Powell

Friday, October 28, 2005

Foul, Foul, Most Foul.


Aspen in Early Spring, 2002 Posted by Picasa

The Miers nomination is another evidence that Roe must be overturned. The horrible legal arguments which found the appearance of a likeness of the right of privacy in the U. S. Constitution have politicized the Court to the point that it may no longer be possible to have a sane discussion over the merits of a nominee.

This is what liberalism does. When feeling replaces rationality, discussion is over, because emotion cannot distinguish between words. The best case in point are the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They are emotional slogans, not descriptions of real categories.

The brutal, tyrannical Roe vs Wade decision imposed an emotional solution on a nation that desperately needed a discussion on morals, the beginning of life, and the nature of human life. Instead, the discussion was ended by a preemptive strike and the slamming down of THE LAW, at least the version of THE LAW that the majority of a few robed justices deemed to be the best for us, making law up out of whole cloth.

The result of an emotion decision was predictible: from Ted Kennedy's irrational and emotional "borking" of Robert Bork to the "miersing" of Harriet Miers. Will we ever get another non-judicial nomination to the Supreme Court? Isn't it a bit ironic that a candidate who might just as well have voted to overturn Roe vs Wade is rejected because she was perceived as lacking the necessary judicial intelligence and articulation to argue intelligently against the irrational decision of Roe vs Wade? Does it take nuanced argument to see through irrationalism? or is that simply answering a fool according to his folly, becoming like the fool.

This reveals the perniciousness of the Roe vs Wade decision. Apart from the immorality of the slaughter of babies, it has so corrupted the Court itself that irrationalism has become well-nigh impervious to attack. Robert Bork's arguments against her nomination were and are compelling to me, but it is a awful thing that we had to oppose a lady who might very well had been a very fine justice in another time and place. Roe vs Wade has so poisoned the political arena that discussion cannot take place. If you dump a load of excrement on my head, I am not likely to want to sit down to a rational and urbane discussion of anything. How in the name of anything sane did the Roe vs Wade justices ever expect sanity to come from a fundamentally insane decision? Only if they believed that the definition of truth was up for grabs, a basically insane mindset.

Isaiah said it many centuries ago: "Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." When men pretend that truth can be decided by fiat, she falls in the street under her wounds and blocks the way to fairness and integrity.

Miers had to be opposed because of the world created by Roe vs Wade. That is sad. Sane discussion can only be restored by the national purgation and repentance that could come from having a real national and Senatorial debate on the nature of constitutional truth--is constitutional law derived from the Constitution or from the socialogical or legal theories and moral relativism wandering through the minds of the justices?

A stealth candidate will not do that, Mr. President. We need the debate over the nature of constitutionalism, not a new tone that would pretend that Ted Kennedys excrement is not excrement or that pretends that Howard Dean is a sane man. Pretending that Roe Vs. Wade has intellectual, moral, or legal legitimacy is what brought us to this place, not the opponents of Harriet Miers.

There must be no cloud or penumbra or the appearance of a likeness in law. In the days of King Charles I Anglican Archbishop Laud sought to require an oath of allegiance to "government of this church by archbishops, bishops, deans and archdeacons, etc". The devil was in the "etc."

If robed justices can find rights and laws in the "penumbra" of the constitution, then we have rule by men, not by law, particularly rule by those men who have elastic minds who can stretch words to mean whatever they want them to mean, a most dangerous class of liars.

President Bush has an opportunity to open the debate. America is crying for it.

Pray for him.
Post a Comment

Followers

Blog Archive