Monday, June 27, 2005

Supreme Court strikes again

For those of us involved in the Right to Life, summer and the supreme court always suggest strange and sometimes stupid sounds emanating from the clerk's office as the court reveals its latest crop of directives, dare I say, dictations to the poor masses on the so-called important issues of the day.

Today's rulings included two on the display of the Ten Commandments. Now I suppose that my legal training may be considered suspect, after all I did not study at Harvard or Yale, but I do not recall anything in the U.S. Constitution discussing the propriety of placement of the Ten Commandments on the walls of a public building.

I do remember being in the Supreme Court and I do believe that the Ten Commandments are located on the walls of the Supreme Court. So why can these supposedly intelligent persons not get it right. The decision was 5-4, and in the interest of full disclosure, the Court will allow states to place the commandments outside in a general display. See the Texas case. But really, is this the best they can do?

It is all a part of the continuing erosion of the legislative process, of the role of the states and of the executive branch of government to handle the ordinary non-constitutional issues of the day. And it once again forces me to remind everyone that this is what the Court in Roe v. Wade did to the states. Until 1973 the states had the unfettered right to protect its citizens from harm. Roe abolished that right and created out of whole cloth the so-called right to privacy (which by the way is not very private). By refining reality into courtspeak, the Supremes acted to allow for the wanton destruction of over 40,000,000 children during the last 32+ years. We are all suppose to stand by and worship at the temple of the Supreme Court.

Just as the First Commandment expressly condemns the notion that we can worship other gods, so the Court tells us that it alone can be the object of our adulation and obedience.

If you do not agree, then the government can always dispossess you of your property.

Well - think about it. You do not have a right to life anymore according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You do not have a right to own property without permission of the state.

What's next?
This is why you all must contact the White House and tell the president - he must select a pro-life candidate for any vacancy on the bench. We need someone who respects our inherent right to life, liberty and property.


Post a Comment

<< Home