Con Law in a Nutshell: Creating a Parallel Universe

Culture Wars ^ | 1/04 | James G. Bruen, Jr.

[Aquinasfan]

Bump for those interested in SCOTUS decisions regarding abortion and homosexuality.

[thoughtomator]

Impeach first.

Try for sedition next.

[Nateman]

The court of Supreme Whim strikes again!

[proxy_user]

Teenage boy: "That's right, Mr. Bruen, it's true that subatomic particles whizzing around each other give the illusion that you and I exist, and that we exist in the material world. But it is only an illusion. The only reality is in the realm of the spirit.

"So since we do not really possess bodies, and they are a mere construct of our reasoning process, what we do in these putative bodies is of no consequence in the intellectual and spiritual realm, which is the only true form of existence.

Somehow, I've missed all these NeoPlatonist kids. Most of them seem just to want to drink beer and watch TV.

[sirshackleton]

"Uhhh, could you repeat that, Mr Bruen?"

[Aquinasfan]

Most of them seem just to want to drink beer and watch TV.

True, but the one thing most of them believe is that there is no such thing as objective truth.

In a few years, I'm going to be this dad...

Suppose you are sitting in your living room with a young man who is dating your daughter. The conversation turns to his intentions towards your daughter. You are seeking assurance that he respects her. Instead he assures you that 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. You would probably be justified in concluding he recognizes no moral boundaries in his relationship with your daughter...

[gcruse]

Most impressive. Never before have I seen a man gaze a hole right through his navel.

[fourdeuce82d]

So, if your visitor starts babbling about defining his own concept of existence, you might be justified in concluding he hoped to sodomize your son.

so...first he's gonna bone my daughter, then he's gonna bone my sone????

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over...

Idiot.

[Aquinasfan]

Unless something is done soon, we will see person's marrying their llamas..

LOL! The Founders envisioned a renegade Supreme Court. I forget how they intended to check its power. Maybe someone can tell us.

[jimt]

...we will see person's marrying their llamas..

It's certainly as legitimate as "gay marriage". The logic used to change the definition of marriage to "two persons" cannot come up with any reasonable justification to restrict it to "two" or to "persons".

[inquest]

Under the Constitution, Congress defines the powers of all lower courts (and can even restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court). So Congress, by a simple act of legislation, can for example prohibit federal courts from ordering state officials to recognize a same-sex "marriage", or from enjoining state officials against enforcing any particular law.

[inquest]

I don't know for sure why they haven't done it. A big part of the reason, of course, is that Congress was controlled by Democrats up until only a decade ago. Since then, moderate Republicans have joined with Democrats to maintain an effective majority against these kinds of legislation. I think another part of the reason is the media-induced public view that the courts are the only thing standing between venal politicians and totalitarian madness.

I don't think it would be that much of an exaggeration to say that if people understood the true nature of judicial activism, legislation like this might not be necessary.

[spunkets]

"Why hasn't Congress used this route to preclude jurisdiction on abortion, same sex marriage and countless other issues that tear at the fabric of our country derived as it was from European forebears?

Abortion is covered under the commerce clause, because the physician's enterprise is interstate. The other issues belong to the States, because of the Tenth Amend.

[inquest]

Sorry, if I'm selling hot dogs outside my front porch, and some guy from halfway across the country decides to buy one, I'm not engaging in "interstate commerce".

[Zack Nguyen]

Thanks, Aquinasfan.

Instead he assures you that 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.

I used to consider this statement laughably stupid. As I matured in understanding of Christianity vs. secularism, I began to conclude that this statement was supremely dangerous, and represented man's attempt to put himslef in God's place, in effect rebuilding the Tower of Babel.