Another decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, another dagger in the heart of freedom. What's new? It's almost redundant at this point. It's becoming difficult to comment on the implications of decisions like this because they are so common and one-sided. It's easy to miss the significance, but rest assured, there is much for us to learn from these recent events. For those of you who are uninformed (or simply unconcerned), the Supreme Court decided (in a 5-3 vote) that Texas's new law that regulated abortion clinics was too restrictive. Yeah, that's the point. Anyway, let's take a look at the implications of this:
1) It's a game. The political process is a game. The Supreme Court votes are a game. Washington D.C. is one big game. We all know it. The fact that we have justices who are outspokenly pro-choice voting on this sort of issue is ridiculous. The whole idea of a swing vote illustrates how idiotic this game has become. We all know how most of the justices will vote, so we hope that that one moderate will go our way! What ever happened to justices being unbiased and approaching each vote based upon the Constitution? Supreme Court decisions have become political, and, at that point, they are worthless. The very fact that we're fighting over who gets to appoint the justices shows how sad it is. If they voted like they should (like, according to the Constitution), it really shouldn't matter their personal political bent. Perhaps Alito said it best, "The Court's patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter."
2) The President doesn't matter. One of the reasons we're supposed to ignore our consciences and vote for Donald Trump is because we need to have conservative judges nominated. Well, the conservatives lost this one 5-3, so Scalia's presence wouldn't have mattered. Besides, what makes us think that Trump would nominate conservative judges anyway? Remember that time that George Bush nominated a good conservative? What was his name again? Oh yeah, John Roberts. How'd that work out, conservatives? In fairness, Bush did also appoint Alito, who is a pretty good justice. The point is simply this, any justice nominated by Trump or Hillary will most likely reinforce our current slide into meaningless law.
3) We should change our name. We're not the United States of America anymore. Why? Well, first off, we're not really that united anymore, so we're just fooling ourselves. More importantly, we've totally and completely abandoned the notion of autonomous states united by common consent. In place of that original design we have chosen federalism, which has reduced the states to nothing but provinces--local outposts of the almighty federal hand. We are not the United States of America. We are simply, America, and we happen to call our subdivisions "states."
4) We, that is the pro-life right, need to rethink our approach to abortion. Many argue that regulation of abortion is approval. Others are happy to close down as many clinics as possible, choosing the pragmatic route, which, admittedly, has saved many lives. The best way to defeat abortion has been debated for a while, but we're seeing now that the battle is over ideals and principles, and that, in the long run, regulating abortion will not save lives. The more we ignore the heinous nature of abortion, the farther away we get from meaningful victories in the fight for life. We must no longer regulate murder. We must outlaw it.
5) Liberals lack logic. Restrict guns, they say. That will get them off the streets, they say, totally ignoring the fact that criminals will get guns illegally because, well, they're criminals. When it comes to abortions, however, they say that placing restrictions on abortions (with the intent of making them safer) will cause women to get them illegally, thus endangering women. If you don't see the double standard, you might be a liberal. The difference in logic, of course, is that liberals view the latter as a human right, while the former is nothing more than a vestigial remnant from a bygone era.
6) America and morality are squarely opposed to one another. It is the official opinion of our highest court that it is the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. Let that sink in. Further, it is an "undue burden" upon a woman to regulate strictly where and how she kills her unborn child. Again, let that sink in. If you aren't appalled, your issue is more than political. No political or scientific debate will help us now.
So, have we learned anything new? No, not really. The left is still militantly advancing their agenda. Freedom is losing, again, as it always has traditionally done. America still hates God and the image of God in mankind. People are still paying more attention to sports than civic and political matters (you can have a balance, I assure you). On that note, maybe I'll write in LeBron James come voting time. It'll probably be as good as any other option.
Comments
Post a Comment