Justice v. Social Justice Part I

Article V Blog ^ | May 8th 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

The enduring crime of scotus is the enshrinement of social justice feel-good nostrums as rights. Over the course of two posts, I will differentiate between justice and scotus-derived concoctions, social justice that assault our senses and society. To this end, my attention is drawn to the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of our Constitution. I will connect the ‘just’ of the Declaration and ‘Justice’ of the Constitution’s Preamble, and their mutual reliance on Natural Law. We will find that no court decision can legitimately harm the societal foundation of our republic. Equivalently, if a newly discovered 'right' from scotus harms society, it isn’t a right.

snip

Every June, our nation holds its collective breath in anticipation of what five loony-tune judges on the Supreme Court will come up with. Those who think our Constitution hasn’t been corrupted into a societal suicide pact hasn’t paid attention to the General Sherman-like march of scotus through our traditions and institutions. When a simple majority of five lawyers enshrine homosexual marriage as a right, and determine that race and gender-based college admissions and private sector hiring is just, who doesn’t roll their eyes at these contradictions of common sense? We detect these contradictions because reason informs us. This law of reason was known to ancient, medieval, Enlightenment philosophers and our Founding generation as Natural Law, which, along with the Laws of Nature’s God supersede scotus opinions.

snip

Let one generation after another be taught, in opposition to the Declaration, that reason is incapable of discovering universal truths or standards by which to determine whether a scotus opinion conforms to Natural Law, then the ability of the people to defend civil society from social justice perversions will vanish. Justice will be no more, and with it, the republic.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[budj]

My great pet peeve is the modification of the word “justice.”

Any adjective modifying “justice” should be immediately translated to “not.”

Either you get what you’ve earned or you don’t.

[AndyJackson]

and you earned what you get.

[whodathunkit]

Very well stated budj. This is exactly what I think whenever I hear social, environmental, or any other modifier preceding ‘justice’.

[BlueYonder]

Every modification of “justice” results in injustice.

Social justice, economic justice, racial justice, etc. all have an agenda which is to get even. The way you get even is by favoring certain outcomes over others. Voila, injustice.

[Edward.Fish]

> Any adjective modifying “justice” should be immediately translated to “not.”
> Either you get what you’ve earned or you don’t.

I can think of two adjectives modifying ‘Justice” which wouldn’t/shouldn’t be translated as “not” — “Holy” & “Righteous”.