Michael Medved discusses and takes some calls regarding SCOTUS hearing oral arguments today about Masterpieces Cakeshop’s case (Podcast: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments For Masterpiece Cakeshop Case [The Federalist] | Statement of cake artist Jack Phillips following oral arguments at US Supreme Court [ADF])
The L.A. Times notes the following… I will emphasize the main point:
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented:
- “Today, with the admirable intention of providing justice for one criminal defendant, the court not only pries open the door; it rules that respecting the privacy of the jury room, as our legal system has done for centuries, violates the constitution,” [….] “it is questionable whether our system of trial by jury can endure this attempt to perfect it.” ~ Samuel Alito
Here is the WALL STREET JOURNAL article Dennis was reading from:
John and Ken discuss the legal attacks against Trumps temporary travel ban with Professor John Eastman, who is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. Dr. Eastman makes note that the provision allowing for the President to do this is clear. It is also clear the Courts (specifically the 9th Circuit) has overstepped its bounds… yet again. Stefan Molyneux points out that in 2012, The U.S Supreme Court reversed 86% of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that it reviewed. WOW. That is a clear sign of something going on — like Judicial activism. Since the argument Trump used is essentially the same as Obama’s, it is hard to see why all the Justices via SCOTUS wouldn’t agree with Trumps Constitutional right in this matter.
The HAMMER notes well in this WASHINGTON POST opinion piece that we should be thanking God for Reid’s power grabs.
(Originally posted on the 27th of January)
People warned the Democrats… “what would happen if a Republican does what your guy did?” Well…
Mark Levin gives us an Econ 101 class on tariffs and taxes. This is why the unions love this because it protects their jobs and not other businesses in the States. An interesting part of the call which I stitched to before the other segment is an article in the Wall Street Journal which notes that the reason car manufacturers build in Mexico is due to free-trade agreements:
- Audi says that an array of free trade agreements favors Mexico over U.S. sites. Its not just the price of skilled labor that is attractive to Audi. If you think about a $50,000 car made in the U.S. that is then exported to Europe there is a 10% duty on that car. So that’s $5000 in duties that Audi is paying. When that same car is made in Mexico there is no duty. This means with an already concentrated area of auto manufactures in Mexico, low cost skilled labor and free trade agreements it is a huge win for Audi and it will be easy to do business. No reinventing the wheel or stepping out alone as the only auto manufacture, Audi is simply following suit. (WSJ)
Not only will these Executive Orders (E.O.) worsen us in the long run (unless this administration has something else up their sleeve), it is the same thing we gripped about when Obama was President and Left leaning legal scholar, Jonathan Turley said was not what the office of President was intended for. Agreed.
What is interesting is the juxtaposition the Dems find themselves in regarding the E.O.’s. You see, you had many challenges to Obama’s E.O.’s and he holds the record for the most overturned by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in our history as a country. But they were brought to the court mainly by Republican Attorney Generals in a state[s] or a group — or a combination thereof. AND YES, many of these actions Trump is taking with his pen and paper are just as unconstitutional. However, in 2018 we find this:
- The GOP will be defending just eight seats, while Democrats must fight for 23 — plus another two held by independents who caucus with Democrats. (THE HILL)
This means that since the Democrats know their constituents are already upset enough at them to switch parties… why would you rock the boat on some of these executive orders that they know their constituents like. Like the car manufactures/unions. What Democrat in their right mind would bring a case to SCOTUS to overturn something they wish they had did?
Or how bout’ the growing concern in the black community about jobs and the influx of illegal immigrants? You see, they type of people Trump is putting on the Court would vote AGAINST what Trump is doing. They are originalists, and so, the Democrats would certainly win these cases if brought before the conservative Court.
AGAIN… they also have to win in 2018. They are essentially protecting 25-seats… 10 of which are “red-state” seats.
So many of these E.O.’s Trump is writing could easily be overturned if moved forward by the Democrats. Right now however, doing so would be politically dangerous for them. For now at least.
Again, I emphatically agree with HOTAIR… Executive Orders Are Not The Way To Do Policy…Even Good Ones
(H-T to REGGIE DUNLOP for the above)
What leftist is going to bring the above to the Court? This is how I described it on my Facebook:
In other words… if Trump were truly a dictator looking to split the branches of government… he would pick Justices who would support his Executive Orders.
Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan;
Front row (left to right): John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
Associate Justice Lycurgus of Sparta, and Associate Justice Margaret Sanger.
This is becoming my canned response to why i am still voting for Trump even after his horrible statements about women. Mind you, I would prefer him to step down and Pence take over, but that is neither-here-nor-there.
Firstly, Trump apologized:
Has Hillary ever apologized for getting a child rapist off and laughing at his guilt? Has any liberal Democrat said, “well, you know, Bill was not fit for office in the second term” (and NOT vote for him a second time?). Paula Jones puts it well (to the right), and one should see Juanita Broaddrick relive the attack by Bill and realize that Hillary attacked these women (as did the media). Again, to be clear:
- KATHLEEN WILLEY CALLS FOR HILLARY TO RESIGN FROM CAMPAIGN…
- JUANITA BROADDRICK: She lives with and protects a rapist….
- PAULA JONES: Bill ‘was getting wee wee sucked under Oval Office desk and won second term’…
There are many reasons I don’t like voting for Trump. But there are many I do.
- Reducing Taxes;
- Border control;
- Reducing regulations, ;
- the Supreme Court (First and Second Amendments);
- Rejecting political-correctness (or, cultural Marxism).
etc. (see this short audio)
There are other issues as well, but another sticking point with me is how violent Democrats are (and always have been):
This aspect of the left needs to be fully rejected as well. A great article came out the same time I was formulating what is to follow… but first a small excerpt from the article via PJ-MEDIA:
Now here is my canned “post” I am putting on Facebook… I will follow it up with a very short discussion about it:
Here was a response to the above
Here is the initial statement based off the above that kicked of the larger conversation:
After I posted much of the above, the conversation continued:
- Who did you vote for the last two terms?
Here is his honest response (and I thank him for it):
- Oddly enough I didn’t.
He finished the conversation by saying my reasoning is why he is not voting for either choice this year. Which is his prerogative. He noted the last 8-years (under Obama) has taught him a lot (it has a few Democrats). Part of this may be the fact that well-respected liberal Democrat legal scholars are likewise afraid of the current direction of the left. And why the Court must not be seeded to Hillary:
So again, while I do not respect Trump, I will vote for the man. Here are more examples of the hypocritical Left that is now lecturing me:
…AND THEY’RE LECTURING ME!?
Mark Levin speaks with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network about Donald Trumps “telegraphing” of his Supreme Court [possible] judicial nominees.
I am somewhat ambivalent to his dedication to and for such picks… but in speaking to the Heritage Foundation as well as the Federalist Society he is showing some commitment to get conservative to vote for him.
- He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
- He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
- He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.
…and this was one of them.
An informative segment to say the least.
For more wise counsel like this from Mark “the Great One” Levin… I invite you to visit: http://www.marklevinshow.com/
Breitbart gives us this update to my “time-line” of activity against the religious people of the Catholic Church:
December 14, 2014
Three main points from the brief, via Westword:
- The brief lays out three main complaints about the procedure. The first? Since the form “designates, authorizes, incentivizes, and obligates third parties to provide or arrange contraceptive coverage in connection with the plan,” the brief contends that “once the Little Sisters execute and deliver the Form, the Mandate purports to make it irrevocably part of the plan by forbidding the Little Sisters to even talk to the outside companies that administer their health plan, ‘directly or indirectly,’ to ask them not to provide the coverage.”
- In addition, the brief allows that “regardless of whether the government sincerely believes EBSA Form 700 is morally meaningful, the relevant legal question is whether the Little Sisters do. And on that point, there is no dispute: the Little Sisters cannot execute and deliver the contraceptive coverage form without violating their religious conscience. The government may think the Little Sisters should reason differently about law and morality, but their actual religious beliefs — the beliefs that matter in this case — have led them to conclude that they cannot sign or send the government’s Form.”
- Finally, the government’s so-called “scheme” is said to violate the First Amendment, because it has “exempted a large class of religious organizations based on unfounded guesswork about the likely religious characteristics of different religious organizations. The government has no power to discriminate in this fashion, allowing some religious organizations to survive while crushing others with fines for the identical religious exercise. This violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is compounded by a clear violation of the Free Speech Clause: the Mandate both compels the Little Sisters to engage in government-required speech against their will, and prohibits them from engaging in speech they wish to make.”
Another short commentary on what took place just a couple days ago via The Daily Signal:
January 5, 2014
I posted about the Little Sisters a while ago, and we will be entering into a new faze of this issue soon:
Does Sotomoyer see the dangers in this? Gateway Pundit Updates:
- Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor blocked the Obama administration from forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide free contraceptive coverage to employees. The Little Sisters of the Poor serve the elderly poor in over 30 countries around the world.
December 20, 2012
Via Gateway Pundit:
In conversations since the decision I get the, “you are defending your religious point of view… what about others religious or non-religious viewpoints?” Firstly, I use — typically — non-Biblical responses. My Same-Sex Marriage Page makes one point using the Bible, the other five and secular worries that should make one consider the issue. I have written an entire chapter in my book dealing with the natural law response to the issue. I also note that at no time in history has this idea of same-sex marriage ever been even contemplated to be of equal value to society. No religious leader or major moral thinker that helped shape sour society or others ever thought different.
So, while I try to stay away from either expressly or even using my faith in the majority of the argument… lets say I were to do so? So What! Here is [lesbian] Tammy Bruce:
Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic…
…these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly. If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”…. After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society – children – in their image.
Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 35; 92, 206.
Justice Without Absolutes?
The French Revolution was fueled by rhetoric about the “rights of man.” Yet without a foundation in the Judeo-Christian teaching of creation, there is no way to say what human nature is. Who defines it? Who says how it ought to be treated? As a result, life is valued only as much as those in power choose to value it. Small wonder that the French Revolution – with its slogan, “Neither God Nor Master,” quickly led to tyranny accompanied by the guillotine. The American Revolution had its slogan as well, and it goes to show how different the understanding of human nature was in these two revolutions. The end result of our freedom also goes to show the validity in “the eternal foundation of righteousness” in which they were set. (Tellingly, the Revolutionary slogan of the U. S. was, “No King But King Jesus!”)
According to C. S. Lewis (professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and Cambridge universities, and a philosopher in his own right) one source of the “poison of subjectivism,” as he called it, is the belief that man is the product of blind evolutionary process:
“After studying his environment man has begun to study himself. Up to that point, he had assumed his own reason and through it seen all other things. Now, his own reason has become the object: it is as if we took out our eyes to look at them. Thus studied, his own reason appears to him as the epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process. His own logic, hitherto the king whom events in all possible worlds must obey, becomes merely subjective. There is no reason for supposing that it yields truth.”
First mock Conversation
- First Person: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
- Second Person: “Why not?”
- First Person: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”
- Second Person: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”
Second Mock Conversation
- First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
- Second Person: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”
- First Person: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”
- Second Person: “Is that your opinion?”
- First Person: “Yes.”
- Second Person: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”
- First Person: “But your saying your view is right.”
- Second Person: “Am I wrong?”
- First Person: “Yes.”
- Second Person: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”
Third Mock Conversation
- First Person: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”
- Second Person: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”
- First Person: “You are.”
- Second Person: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?”
(Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.)
“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” ~ Dennis Prager
So lets unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris put it, self-deleting.
➤ When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”
This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you. Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?” Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.
…Such “exclude religion” arguments are wrong because marriage is not a religion! When voters define marriage, they are not establishing a religion. In the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the word “religion” refers to the church that people attend and support. “Religion” means being a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Jew. It does not mean being married. These arguments try to make the word “religion” in the Constitution mean something different from what it has always meant.
These arguments also make the logical mistake of failing to distinguish the reasons for a law from the content of the law. There were religious reasons behind many of our laws, but these laws do not “establish” a religion. All major religions have teachings against stealing, but laws against stealing do not “establish a religion.” All religions have laws against murder, but laws against murder do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to abolish slavery in the United States and England was led by many Christians, based on their religious convictions, but laws abolishing slavery do not “establish a religion.” The campaign to end racial discrimination and segregation was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist pastor, who preached against racial injustice from the Bible. But laws against discrimination and segregation do not “establish a religion.”
If these “exclude religion” arguments succeed in court, they could soon be applied against evangelicals and Catholics who make “religious” arguments against abortion. Majority votes to protect unborn children could then be invalidated by saying these voters are “establishing a religion.” And, by such reasoning, all the votes of religious citizens for almost any issue could be found invalid by court decree! This would be the direct opposite of the kind of country the Founding Fathers established, and the direct opposite of what they meant by “free exercise” of religion in the First Amendment.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 31.
Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.
During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of “erring” Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.
In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders, including Elijah Lovejoy (the first abolitionist martyr), Lyman Beecher, Edward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe (author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Charles Finney, Charles T. Torrey, Theodore Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, “and others too numerous to mention.” The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.
There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 49-50.