SCOTUS:Desperately Seeking Nietzsche And Marx

Toogood Reports ^ | July 16, 2003 | Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

There could be reason to celebrate the deliberate dictates of the Supreme Court majority in The Michigan (affirmative action) and Texas (sodomy statutes). That is if one subscribes to the axiom that these are the straws that will break the camel's back; that these contemptible rulings will finally galvanize a rebellion against the indignities that they are.

But there is no reason to celebrate because there is no camel; there is only a growing pile of straw. Following these decisions, the thinly provocative arguments against the court's decrees advanced by numerous commentators are as straw to straw, failing to define the camel. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

Among these comments, it has been argued that the Texas statute was a "silly" law (Justice Thomas) and other variants. No it wasn't. It was, as is often and sensibly the case, a legislative mandate deriving from a moral premise. It's intent was to create a societal stop sign to place public limits on individual sexual appetites. It was only the flagrant behavior of the subjects of its enforcement that the law was caused to be exercised.

It's also been argued that SCOTUS clearly usurped State's Rights. Correct. Further, and a bit more comprehensively it's been argued that these decrees sidestepped the Constitution; that the legal briefs proffered by the majority (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter - in Lawrence) were nothing more than thinly veiled personal beliefs delivered with a patina of legalese. Frighteningly, true.

But all these arguments fail because they merely suckle at the breast of sophistry. A suitable allegory is that of having a bomb lobbed into your back yard, and in retaliation you engage in a discussion of decibels, yield potential, delivery mechanisms, and trajectories, when the situation calls for a declaration of war and a palpable retaliation against a despotic aggressor. It is simply idiotic to bring a softball to a gunfight. Joe McCarthy understood this.

We are at the crest of a 40 year wave of 'progressive' ideology, and in that process we have collectively become dupes of habituation. We've been sedated by the oily lexicon of metaphysical aggression from which flows round-cornered socioterms and communiphrases: judicial activism, diversity, women's issues, gay lifestyle, no-fault divorce, homophobia, wall of separation, self-esteem, gender, multiculturalism, sexual minority, sexual freedom, violence-against-women, sexual diversity, ethnicity, empowerment, reproductive freedom, planned parenthood, privacy, progressive, and 'sensitivity' lest we demean homosexual relationships.

And speaking of premorbid cholesterol levels - "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life" - (Justice Kennedy, 1996, In Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
" ... personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," ... "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. ... (the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the) rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." - (Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion in Lawrence)

Consider the foregoing statements as you read the following:

"(He) rejected the notion that there is a universal and absolute system of morality that everyone must equally obey. People are different, he thought, and to conceive of morality in universal terms is to disregard basic differences among individuals. Whenever someone proposes a universal moral rule, he invariably seeks really to to deny the fullest expression of man's elemental vital energies. In this respect, Christianity along with Judaism is the worst offender, for the Judeo-Christian ethic is so contrary to man's basic nature that its antinatural morality debilitates man and produces only 'botched and bungled' lives."

(in Elements of Philosophy: Turning Values Upside Down pp. 78-79)

The 'he' whose thinking the foregoing describes was Friedrich Nietzsche, the same Nietzsche who declared, "G-d is dead", and who died hopelessly insane before he could complete his Revaluation of Values.

"Last weekend, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor appeared on ABC News' This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos. Justice Breyer made the following extraordinary comment on that show: 'Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.' The comment was made in the course of discussing Lawrence v. Texas, the June 26th decision that struck the sodomy laws of 16 states, by a vote of 6-3 among the Justices. Justice Breyer had agreed with Justice Kennedy that members of the Court should look to foreign courts and foreign laws in deciding what laws should apply in the United States." (source: Congressman Billybob)

With regard to Justice Breyer's world view, consider the following:

"Moreover, the greatest error is to fail to realize that ideas that accurately reflected the material order at an earlier time no longer do so because, in the meantime, the substructure of reality has moved on. Those who hold on to old ideas do not realize that there is no longer any reality corresponding to those ideas, and their desire to reverse the order of things to fit these ideas makes them 'reactionaries.' On the other hand, an astute observer can discover the direction in which history is moving and will adjust his thinking and behavior to it. Those who assume the objective reality of 'eternal principles' of justice, goodness, and righteousness do not realize that such notions cannot refer to reality since the material order, which is the only reality, is constantly changing. ... when the inner contradictions between the classes (are ) resolved, the principle cause of movement and change (will) disappear, (and) a classless society (will) emerge where all the forces (will) be in perfect balance, and this equilibrium (will) be perpetual."

(in Elements of Philosophy: Class Conflict pp. 183-84

When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the rest of that majority six-pack engage the lexicon of the "living and breathing" Constitution, unscrupulously asserting that the Founders intended it to have the oozy flexibly to conform to each capricious whim of the American people - not to mention conformity with foreign constitutions, their 'astute observations' are alarmingly consistent with the thinking of the central figure of the foregoing assessment - Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto.

USA Today made the incredible statement: "the currently conservative court has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties." They are wrong on both points. Neither is this a 'conservative' court, nor is it a mere possibility that they will adopt foreign court's views - they just have. But the USA Today story is a glaring example of the twin evils of habituation and sedation overwhelming the faculty of critical thinking.

In these most recent decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States completely abandoned any pretense of operating within so much as the 'penumbra' or 'emanations' of our founding document, the United States Constitution. These edicts reflect instead Nietzsche's advocacy of G-dlessness and the Will to Power, as well as Marx's condemnation of Class Conflict in favor of a classless society.

The abolition of historicity and moral foundation has been evidenced by SCOTUS since Roe v Wade discovered 'privacy'. It has now moved into whole new avenues of promiscuity and the permanent ensconcement of the victim classes. In the Marxist lexicon of Justice Breyer, "it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people."

Having progressively and contradictorily established in law a motley assortment of classes, the O'Connor court has now set itself the task of the great leveling of the global playing field by oozing the 'artificial' barriers of individuated sovereign law into one great world constitution.

And that, my friends, is more than a violation of trust and oath of office that vows to uphold the United States Constitution. It is an insidious attempt to usurp the power of the states and indeed, the sovereignty of the United States. As such this is a greater evil than that which Joe McCarthy faced. At least his enemy had a name, Communism.

What shall we call this? Despotic narcissism? Or maybe ... Communihilism

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Transnational Socialism.

[headsonpikes]

"But all these arguments fail because they merely suckle at the breast of sophistry."

Perfervid purple prose bump.

It is doubtful that more than one or two of the Justices are either Nietzscheans or Marxists. ;^)

[Phaedrus]

But all these arguments fail because they merely suckle at the breast of sophistry ... It is simply idiotic to bring a softball to a gunfight. Joe McCarthy understood this.

We are at the crest of a 40 year wave of 'progressive' ideology, and in that process we have collectively become dupes of habituation.

The abolition of historicity and moral foundation has been evidenced by SCOTUS since Roe v Wade discovered 'privacy'. It has now moved into whole new avenues of promiscuity and the permanent ensconcement of the victim classes. In the Marxist lexicon of Justice Breyer, "it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people."

Words mean things. SCOTUS should be defied and verbally abused for these recent rulings. They gut the Constitution. They are a sham. These "rulings" cry out for our loud and public contempt.

[Fee]

Sodomy can be stopped if good people start to sue them for the costs of taking care of STD. Conservatives must learn to use the court system just like the Liberals. In war one must adopt successful tactics. Going to the legislature takes too much time, not all GOP lawmakers have the moral courage to do what is right and finally the law passed can be nullified by the courts. Let us leverage the greed of lawyers to enhance our agenda. Many gay people and institutions are wealthy. All we need to do is find a legal means to discourage their behavior by holding risky behavior financially accountable for the damages on our public health.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

See Cordozo Law Review Jan 03, Vol. 24, No. 2.

[Phaedrus]

In the Marxist lexicon of Justice Breyer, "it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people."

What an idiot.

[headsonpikes]

A link would be handy.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Scalia answered in his dissent: "The court's discussion of these foreign views is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

[StriperSniper]

Bump for later.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

[Helms]

B.S. Alert-this author does not have a clue

"The 'he' whose thinking the foregoing describes was Friedrich Nietzsche, the same Nietzsche who declared, "G-d is dead", and who died hopelessly insane before he could complete his "Revaluation of Values."

Yet more Nietzsche bunk and bastardization. Nietzsche called for something other than the passive nihilism of the Postmodern Left agenda of today. In fact he largely predicted the European Nihilism which has since infected much of the world. He died in 1900, after falling ill some 10 years prior. He failed to finish "Will To Power".

More junk rendering of one of the greatest philosophers and minds that this world has ever produced.

[Helms]

This article should be in a publication aptly named: "Twilight of the Idiots"

Herr Nietzche is one of the most misunderstood, oft incorrectly quoted and complex philosophical minds in human history.

[headsonpikes]

Thank you.

I examined the Table of Contents of 24:2 and indeed, found numerous articles referencing Nietzsche.

Could you please direct me to the one which identifies certain Supremes as Nietzscheans?

[headsonpikes]

I've always wondered about the marketability of a sweatshirt emblazoned with the phrase 'Nietzsche is Pietzsche'.

;^)

[Helms]

Nietzche is pietzche, but Sartre is smartre.

Bump for the Polish Prince. He was after all Polish, but you know what they said about pollacks in HS. Damned if Copernicus was not a Pollack too.

[headsonpikes]

Lukasiewitz(sp?) was one smart polack, too! ;^)

[Helms]

Check this out:

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/BirthplaceMaps/Places/Warsaw.html

[Noachian]

Having progressively and contradictorily established in law a motley assortment of classes, the O'Connor court has now set itself the task of the great leveling of the global playing field by oozing the 'artificial' barriers of individuated sovereign law into one great world constitution.

And that, my friends, is more than a violation of trust and oath of office that vows to uphold the United States Constitution. It is an insidious attempt to usurp the power of the states and indeed, the sovereignty of the United States

There are some questions this post raises:

Could much of this activism have been diverted if the High Court Justices were accountable to the electorate?

Do Justices, who are given absolute power to change a society, at some point begin to believe in their own divinity?

Why is it so impossible to bring the High Court Justices down to earth and make them face the vote of The People as other politicians do?

If The People do nothing and allow the present system to continue what will happen to this Republic?

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

¨Could much of this activism have been diverted if the High Court Justices were accountable to the electorate?¨

The U.S. Constitution states "Judges… shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Federalist #78 expounds on the concept of 'good behavior'.

The electorate lacks the will to compel the elected to act in accordance with the Constiution.

¨Do Justices, who are given absolute power to change a society, at some point begin to believe in their own divinity?¨

Chief Justice John Marshall: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not men?"

Decades later, their opinions became oracles - Justice Charles Evans Hughes, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

¨Why is it so impossible to bring the High Court Justices down to earth and make them face the vote of The People as other politicians do?¨

Indirectly they do, through the President who appoints with consent of the Senate. The House can impeach and the Senate can try impeachments. Congress can alter the jurisdiction of the Courts. The President can refuse to enforce opinions.

¨If The People do nothing and allow the present system to continue what will happen to this Republic?¨

According RJ Rummel, as regimes become more totalitarian over a populace which has elements that are likely to resist, the greater the probability that regimes will resort to democide. The assault on the Second Amendment is one of many steps toward the DNCs' final solution for America.