The Supreme Court delivered a trifecta of insanity last week, courtesy of a majority who have made one thing abundantly clear: the nation as we once knew it, is on the brink of elimination. Perhaps it was inevitable, given a culture long on self-absorption and self-entitlement, and disastrously short on analytical skills and self respect. And while supporters of the Court’s decisions are in a celebratory mode, their happiness will be short-lived. That’s because what really got tossed on the ash heap of history last week was the rule of law, states’ rights, common decency and any incentive to better one’s lot in life. You won’t get those types of characterizations from progressives or their mainstream media allies. When they’re not busy figuring out how they can ultimately undermine religious freedom, they’re attempting to purge anything they find distasteful from the nation’s historical lexicon.
The Supreme Court delivered a trifecta of insanity last week, courtesy of a majority who have made one thing abundantly clear: The nation as we once knew it is on the brink of elimination.
Perhaps it was inevitable, given a culture long on self-absorption and self-entitlement, and disastrously short on analytical skills and self respect. And while supporters of the Court’s decisions are in a celebratory mode, their happiness will be short-lived. That’s because what really got tossed on the ash heap of history last week was the rule of law, states’ rights, common decency and any incentive to better one’s lot in life.
You won’t get those types of characterizations from progressives or their mainstream media allies. When they’re not busy figuring out how they can ultimately undermine religious freedom, they’re attempting to purge anything they find distasteful from the nation’s historical lexicon. Many spineless conservatives are willing to play along, apparently oblivious to Winston Churchill’s warning about appeasement being little more than the chance to be the crocodile’s last meal, or the incontrovertible reality that leftists are never satisfied, no matter how many concessions people are foolish enough to make to them.
If you haven’t figured out that their ultimate agenda is unassailable power, you’ve been living under a rock.
Let’s begin with Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. et al. In a 5-4 ruling the Court determined that racist intent is not necessary to prove discrimination in housing exists. This means the concept of “disparate impact” can now be applied to the Fair Housing Act. Justice Kennedy aptly described what this really means. “[FHA] permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment,” he stated for the majority.
For those who can’t quite grasp what this means, let me explain: The ethnic makeup of every neighborhood in America will now be filtered through a racialist lens. And if that makeup offends the sensibilities of our federal government housing masters, those neighborhoods will be forced to “adapt” to a standard measured only by results rather than intent. Think Section 8 housing forcibly injected into a neighborhood of high-end houses as a means of tipping the “social justice” scales towards their “proper” balance. Think about the soon-to-be-enforced view that poverty is nothing other than the absence of economic wherewithal, as opposed to myriad aspects of the human condition, such as a lack of ambition, poor choices, a lousy education, etc. Everyone is now entitled to live in neighborhoods once reserved for those who mistakenly believed a life well-lived should have its rewards.
Make no mistake: A well-lived life in and of itself produces the “adverse impact” on others that must now be “rectified” by obliterating any barrier to living in any neighborhood. Well, probably not any neighborhood. The bet here is that progressive enclaves will remain pristine, because social engineering, much like everything else promoted by the Left, will remain true to its “do as I say, not as I do” worldview.
Moving on to King v. Burwell, last week’s 6-3 ruling upholding the Obama administration’s effort to provide health insurance subsidies wherever they deemed fit made one thing clear: Words have no meaning. And once again the Court’s chief contortionist, Chief Justice John Roberts, led the way, insisting the phrase “established by the State” really meant something else, otherwise millions of Americans would be adversely impacted. “Here the statutory scheme compels us to reject the petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange,” Roberts wrote, “and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the Act to avoid.”
No doubt more than a few Americans are surprised that the Court elevated economic analysis over the rule of law, or as Antonin Scalia remarked in his dissent, “that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.” It apparently never occurred to Roberts or his equally clueless colleagues that their ruling is likely to “destabilize” the employment market, as businesses stay below the 50 employee and 30-hour workweek thresholds where ObamaCare becomes mandatory.
For those celebrating this ruling and the steroidal boost it gave to the executive branch of government, which has been given the green light to rewrite law and raise hundreds of billions of dollars absent congressional input, remember one sobering phrase: What goes around comes around. And when some future president decides to unilaterally rewrite, say, Roe v. Wade, don’t say you weren’t warned.
The Court’s 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriages in all 50 states is another court-orchestrated disaster-in-the-making. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.” Kennedy further insisted marriage is a “keystone of our social order.”
Two people? Does Kennedy seriously believe the Court’s “discovery” of yet another constitutional right mentioned nowhere in that document will be limited by his use of the words “two people?” If marriage is now a constitutional right how can the Court stop any number of people willing to embrace that right on their own terms? And even if the number is constrained by Kennedy’s statement, what is to stop a marriage between, for example, a brother and sister or father and daughter from taking place? Certainly not state laws. They were just eviscerated.
So was the expressed will of the public. As this time line makes clear, prior to the Court’s decision, only three states, Maine, Maryland and Washington, approved gay marriage by popular vote. Thirty-three more had it imposed by state legislatures or courts, and 14 states prohibited it until last week. And pardon me ever so much for disagreeing with Kennedy, but the keystone to our social order is procreation. Without that reality, one completely unserved by the legalization of gay marriage, social order becomes irrelevant.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered the most cogent summation of what occurred last week. “Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government,” he writes. “By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.” It is an oligarchy, despite assurances to the contrary, that will ultimately force Christians “to learn how to live as exiles in our own country,” as Rod Dreher, senior editor of American Conservative, frames it.
Exiles? How long before “enemies of the state” becomes the operative term in a nation where the American Left is determined to abet our fundamental transformation into a Godless, classless, and genderless society? The nation is currently enthralled is a passion of cultural “cleansing” where anything and everything that offends leftist sensibilities must be destroyed, akin to the historical urges of the Soviet Union — or modern-day ISIS. No doubt leftists would bristle at such “over-the-top” comparisons, but maybe they should cast their gaze at University of Texas students willing to take down a statue of George Washington, or a clueless CNN anchor who wants to “rethink” Thomas Jefferson because they owned slaves during period of history where slavery was practiced worldwide by people of every race.
None of it matters to the cultural warriors who believe their moral superiority transcends time, and that it must be imposed by any means necessary. If history gets obliterated in the process? A small price to pay for cultural “harmony.” By the time these know-nothings figure out it is the harmony of totalitarian conformity, it will be too late to save themselves. And while they currently remain ecstatic about the three SCOTUS decisions mentioned here, perhaps a precious handful of them will eventually understand what they applauded was the undoing of the greatest nation ever devised by man — aided and abetted by a Supreme Court willing to embarrass itself in the fatuous pursuit of leftist approval.
In the meantime, I will stand with the exiles, the traditionalists, the patriots and everyone else such people ultimately turn to when their grandiose schemes come crashing down around their arrogant ears. We are a group larger and more powerful than it currently seems, due in large part to a media more than willing to paint a false picture of our marginalization. That is no accident. Above all else, the Left wants Americans who disagree with them to lose hope.
Do not accommodate them.
© Copyright 2015 The Patriot Post
Start a conversation using these share links: