Connect with us

Wire

Op-Ed: Roe v. Wade Perverts Justice the Same Way Nazi & Soviet Courts Did – to Kill in the Name of Equity

Western Journal

Published

on

Innocence is no longer a shield against injustice.

Separating the guilty from the innocent — that was always at the heart of the U.S. constitutional justice system.

No longer so.

Roe v. Wade corrupted that basic principle and substituted equity for justice.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

A “progressive” Supreme Court contended that stage-managing equity is a higher duty than delivering justice. It fabricated a new purpose — a compelling duty to achieve equal outcomes between pregnant women and more “privileged” men unencumbered by pregnancy.

True, the Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, accorded judicial power to “all Cases, in Law and Equity.”

In 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure fused the distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity.

Historically, the difference with equity cases was that judges were allowed a wide exercise of their own discretion rather than strictly adhering to actual laws.

Justice Harry Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade, abused that discretionary power. Authorizing the taking of innocent life is never a matter to be decided by judicial discretion.

Equal Outcomes Through Unjust Killing

Caught up in the rhetoric of the sexual revolution and with zero experience in abortion jurisprudence, Justice Blackmun sought to redress the unequal outcomes allegedly suffered by a pregnant woman with “the unwanted child” by granting her a compensatory right to commission the killing of that child “lawfully.”

It was an equity without justice that introduced a pregnant woman’s killing rights over her “unwanted child” as a legitimate resource needed to reach an equal outcome with men.

Now “equity” has become a popular woke term being misapplied under the guise of correcting alleged discrimination in a huge number of new areas.

The upshot?

Our courts now thrash about trying to impose equal outcomes, too often through unjust means.

Substituting Equity for Justice Is Unconstitutional

Substitution of equity for justice in Roe v. Wade subverted the pre-eminent purpose of the Constitution — to “establish Justice.”

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

But a progressive Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade narrowed these constitutional obligations. It demoted justice and declared equity to be a better road to forming a more perfect union.

Progressives altered the Supreme Court to be primarily a court of equity rather than a court of laws. To this end, Roe v. Wade introduced an overriding endeavor — the establishment of a new kind of equity for women by inventing for us a vile “right” to commission the prenatal killing of the innocent in our power and under our care.

“Equity” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “justice according to natural law or right, specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism.”

The Roe v. Wade court was lured into adopting a facile remedial equity that abrogated justice by introducing a most unjust bias against laws protecting the natural law rights of those the Founders called infants in their mothers’ wombs.

The Women’s Health Protection Act: Abortion Rights as Absolute Rights

Recently, in the passing of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (Yeas and Nays: 218 – 211), we saw a majority of the House succumbing to that unconscionable bias.

“It is the purpose of this Act … to promote access to abortion services and women’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States.”

The constitutional commitment to justice and the rule of law crumbled as the House agreed to sacrifice innocents to the radical feminists’ 21st-century idol — equity.

The Constitution’s original and primary goal “to establish Justice” has been revised. Now the new “build back better” goal has been erected to correct through abortion on demand the “inequity” of pregnancy, ostensible source of imbalance between women and men.

The act condemns state laws protecting the unborn child as “tool[s] of gender oppression … rooted in misogyny.” Protective laws against killing little ones in their mothers’ wombs somehow “reinforce harmful stereotypes about gender roles.”

Should the act pass in the Senate, a mother’s optional commissioning of the prenatal killing of her child becomes an absolute right — no questions asked.

The act specifies there must be no requirement to “disclose the patient’s reason or reasons for seeking abortion services” and no limitation “based on any actual, perceived, or potential reason or reasons of the patient for obtaining abortion services.”

Achieving Equity Justifies the Death Penalty?

For Justice Blackmun, the innocence of “the unwanted child” was insignificant. His ambitious eyes on the rosy picture of achieving equity for women, he declared a new higher priority for courts of law than separating the innocent from the guilty before imposing a death penalty.

In that one appalling decision, abortion jurisprudence collapsed into anarchy.

The Supreme Court was transformed from a court of justice sworn to the constitutional protection of the innocent to a court of obsessive equity dealing out killing rights.

These killing rights were awarded as faulty compensation for alleged social and economic injuries quite innocently visited prenatally by a child upon the child’s mother.

Since Roe, innocence is no longer adequate protection in law against arbitrary deprivation of life.

How Did We Fall for This?

How did we come to tolerating a Supreme Court-approved death sentence carried out “lawfully” by the mother’s abortionist on the mother’s innocent child?

How did we allow a multi-billion dollar abortion industry to profit out of the programmed “lawful” killing of over 62 million American children since Roe?

A progressive-dominated Supreme Court shifted radically from its constitutional requirement to establish justice. From decisions executing the guilty while protecting the innocent, it “progressed” to decisions executing the innocent as compensation for “victims” of unwanted pregnancy.

It was all about legalizing the killing of the innocent for what we were conditioned during the sexual revolution to believe was a higher good — equal outcomes for pregnant women. It was about permanently removing from the disadvantaged pregnant woman the immediate cause of her disadvantage measured against men’s superior advantage of never having to be burdened by pregnancy.

But history teaches us: To do what is wrong — to kill the innocent — never delivers equity.

Women’s Equity Valued Above Legal Protection for Innocents?

In Roe, the whole constitutional justice system collapsed and was replaced with a system that pursues a superficial equity at the expense of true justice.

The court’s discretion was used in an unjust way. It was dead set on awarding compensation to pregnant women by visiting the guilt of women’s “inequality” upon the innocent unborn and pronouncing them deserving of the death sentence if their mothers so choose.

The Supreme Court must reject these inane demands that continue to dribble down to us from the sexual revolution. It must reject extreme socialist justice — the idea that justice is no longer about separating guilt and innocence but rather about enforcing a radically socialist transformation of our nation.

The progressives’ justice is now about reconfiguring our very nature as human beings. It’s about recklessly mutating natural law to the alleged social and economic advantage of selected “victim” groups.

On just such a perversion of justice did the highest courts in communist Russia and in Nazi Germany predicate their disastrous reforms also deemed necessary to redress inequities.

We must turn back from this madness. Supreme Court justices are jurists — not social workers.

As long as we are endowed by nature with differences, the goal of perfect equity is out of reach. Maybe one day the scientists can homogenize us into identical robots, all with the same color, sex and abilities.

But right now that’s not the work of Supreme Court justices. They must return to being faithful to the Constitution — “in Order … to establish Justice” once again.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Buttigieg Tells Americans to Get Used to ‘Disruptions,’ ‘Shocks to the System’

Western Journal

Published

on

Having less is just the way life goes in President Joe Biden’s America, according to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg, who was on paternity leave for months as the supply chain crisis intensified, made the interview rounds this week and put a happy face on the crisis.

In comments Wednesday, he indicated Americans will need to get used to delays and potentially seeing empty shelves for the foreseeable future.

“There are going to be disruptions and shocks to the system as long as the pandemic continues,” he said, according to Reuters.

Rating firm Moody’s said Wednesday that the supply chain issues plaguing America will likely not subside any time soon, and shortages, higher transportation costs and higher prices will ripple through the economy.

But Buttigieg found a sunny side in all that when he popped in for a chat on “The View.”

Is the Biden administration totally incompetent?

“Americans have more money in their pockets compared to a year ago,” Buttigieg said, according to ABC News.

“Where they used to maybe spend it on going to shows or travel, they’ve been more likely to spend it on things, which is why actually we have a record number of goods coming through our ports.”

“Retail sales are through the roof, that’s part of why we have this challenge.”

Buttigieg also put in a brief plug for the infrastructure bill House Democrats have been holding hostage for weeks.

“There’s no easy fix. There’s no magic wand, but there are a lot of things we can do,” Buttigieg said. “We’re relying on infrastructure that was built decades ago, sometimes a century ago.”

His comments on “The View” echoed those made during his Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“Certainly a lot of the challenges that we’ve been experiencing this year will continue into next year. But there are both short-term and long-term steps that we can take to do something about it,” Buttigieg told host Jake Tapper.

“Look, part of what’s happening isn’t just the supply side, it’s the demand side. Demand is off the charts. This is one more example of why we need to pass the infrastructure bill,” he continued.

“There are $17 billion in the President’s infrastructure plan for ports alone and we need to deal with these long-term issues that have made us vulnerable to these kinds of bottlenecks when there are demand fluctuations, shocks and disruptions like the ones that have been caused by the pandemic.”

Tucker Carlson Tonight” host Tucker Carlson said Tuesday that instead of leaders telling Americans they can fix the problems of the nation, the Biden administration is telling Americans to live with them.

Here’s how Carlson summed up the trend: “As your quality of life declines, you are instructed not to notice.”

Slamming an Op-Ed published by The Washington Post that scolded Americans for “[ranting] about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes,” Carlson made that into a symbol of what’s wrong with the nation.

“So if you don’t like the fact the shelves are bare in your local store, don’t throw a fit. Don’t be an entitled little tool. Lower your expectations. What did you expect in America? Come on. Bread lines, we’ve always had bread lines. It’s sort of charmingly retro, these bread lines. Don’t complain as your life becomes worse and as your country degrades,” he said.

“That’s the message, and not surprisingly, that message is coming directly from the people who are making your life worse and destroying the country. That would, of course, would be the White House.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Having less is just the way life goes in President Joe Biden’s America, according to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg, who was on paternity leave for months as the supply chain crisis intensified, made the interview rounds this week and put a happy face on the crisis. In comments Wednesday, he indicated Americans will need to get used to delays and potentially seeing empty shelves for the foreseeable future. “There are going to be disruptions and shocks to the system as long as the pandemic continues,” he said, according to Reuters. Pete Buttigieg couldn’t organize a one car funeral—he’s not going to organize our ports, railroads, highways, and airports. pic.twitter.com/Fh0NjbgGFx — Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) October 14, 2021 Rating firm Moody’s said Wednesday that the supply chain issues plaguing America will likely not subside any time soon, and shortages, higher transportation costs and higher prices will ripple through the economy. But Buttigieg found a sunny side in all that when he popped in for a chat on “The View.”

Is the Biden administration totally incompetent?
“Americans have more money in their pockets compared to a year ago,” Buttigieg said, according to ABC News. “Where they used to maybe spend it on going to shows or travel, they’ve been more likely to spend it on things, which is why actually we have a record number of goods coming through our ports.” “Retail sales are through the roof, that’s part of why we have this challenge.” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says supply chain disruptions will “continue into next year.” “… demand is up, because income is up, because the president has successfully guided this economy out of the teeth of a terrifying recession.” pic.twitter.com/uuFPhZoG8z — The Recount (@therecount) October 17, 2021 Buttigieg also put in a brief plug for the infrastructure bill House Democrats have been holding hostage…

Continue Reading

Wire

Biden Struggles to Speak, Gives Up and Says, ‘Uh, Um, What Am I Doing Here?’

Western Journal

Published

on

In 1992, during the most improbably successful third-party run at the presidency in modern American political history, billionaire businessman Ross Perot selected retired Navy Vice Adm. James Stockdale as his running mate.

Stockdale was a relative unknown in the rarefied air of presidential politics, but his resumé as a leader was impeccable. As the Department of Defense’s website notes, he was “the only three-star admiral to have worn both aviator wings and the Medal of Honor.”

A prisoner of war in Vietnam, he spent almost eight years in the Hanoi Hilton. He was president of the Naval War College until his retirement from the service in 1979, by which point he had earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, four Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts.

Perot was the last third-party candidate to meet the 15 percent threshold set by the Commission on Presidential Debates to appear on stage against the Republican and Democratic candidates — meaning Stockdale also appeared in the vice presidential debate.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Attempting to address his relative anonymity straight off, Stockdale quipped, “Who am I? Why am I here?”

America didn’t get the joke. It became Stockdale’s epitaph; nothing he did before or after would much stick in our cultural consciousness. Thanks in no small part to the media’s ill-concealed joy in reporting Stockdale’s failed attempt at humor, we all remember one of our great war heroes as a man who found his way onto a vice presidential debate stage by accident, as if he’d sleepwalked there in his bathrobe and slippers.

Twenty-nine years and eight days after James Stockdale said those words in jest, the president of these United States stood on a stage and asked — in all seriousness — “What am I doing here?” And the media didn’t bat an eye.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden was in Baltimore for another interminable softball CNN town hall. For the most part, this might as well have been a campaign rally to sell his agenda and his image.

For instance, did you know Biden once raced Corvettes with the recently deceased Colin Powell? If you watched, you did.

“He and I went out [to] the Secret Service racetrack. He had a brand new Corvette, his family bought him, his kids bought him, and I have a ’67 327 350, and we raced. We raced. And, you know, the only reason — no, I’m serious. It was on Jay Leno. Check it out. Jay Leno. He is a hell of a guy,” Biden said, according to a CNN transcript.

Wonderful.

The “news” that came out of the town hall, at least to the media, is that Biden said “we’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster.”

The takeaway was supposed to be that Uncle Joe was angry at those do-nothing Republicans opposing his agenda and was about to unleash the dogs of hell upon them.

The problem with this bombshell was that a) Biden has said this before, with the president taking serious jabs at the institution of the filibuster since at least March and b) the president can’t change the filibuster and hasn’t persuaded the holdout Democrats in the Senate who have refused to alter it, specifically Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

If you’d like some news from Thursday’s town hall, however, perhaps Biden’s James Stockdale moment would suffice.

In one of the rare uncomfortable moments of the night — one where Biden wasn’t railing against perfidious Republicans who won’t let Democrats charge a few trillion dollars of “free stuff” on the credit card of America’s youth, or where he wasn’t recalling how he went zoom-zoom in fast cars with Colin Powell — he was asked about the supply chain crisis.

Anna Hirsch, a Loyola University student, said that “growing up in a small town, I’ve been surrounded by small business owners including my mom, who owns her own interior design business. With the current supply chain crisis, small businesses are in jeopardy of not being able to get products that they need because priority is given to large businesses. Does your administration have any policies or plans in place to aid the current supply chain problem and/or to help small businesses that are affected by this?”

Of course he had plans for both of these things, but he acknowledged “we have a significant supply chain problem,” which he blamed on just-in-time inventory management, a business practice that ensures materials and goods are shipped and received as closely as possible to when they’re being produced or sold, thus reducing inventory and increasing profit.

“Now that’s a big problem. You can’t — people can’t do it. They want to get out ahead,” Biden said, according to the transcript.

“What I’ve recently done, and people said — or doubted we could get it done, I was able to go to the private portion — 40 percent of all products coming into the United States of America on the West Coast go through Los Angeles and –”

Then Biden paused, said, “Uh, um,” and asked, “What am I doing here?”

“Is it Long Beach?” host Anderson Cooper asked.

“Long Beach. Thank you,” Biden said.

Now, the supply chain crisis has ensured the average news-consuming American hears the city of Long Beach name-checked almost as often as on a Snoop Dogg album. The man who has the most power to solve the supply chain crisis, meanwhile, is on stage trying to remember its name — then asks, “What am I doing here?”

Is Joe Biden in cognitive decline?

I can’t answer that question, either, but I don’t think that’s why Biden was asking it.

Thankfully for the president, our moderator decided to intervene and save Biden’s hide. I’m sure Cooper would have done just the same thing for former President Donald Trump — right, America?

This isn’t nitpicking. Yes, Joe Biden has never been fleet of foot verbally. Since the beginning of his campaign, however, Biden’s stumbles have become increasingly common and increasingly worrying. We can’t just laugh them off anymore. This is our president’s month of October:

And the month isn’t even over yet.

These days, it feels as if Joe Biden is averaging at least one James Stockdale per speech. We’ve stopped paying attention, though, even though Biden is the most powerful man in the free world.

When the name of the key port in the supply chain crisis eludes him, he just stands there and sullenly asks, “What am I doing here?”

Good question. Too bad nobody in the media wants to follow up on it.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

In 1992, during the most improbably successful third-party run at the presidency in modern American political history, billionaire businessman Ross Perot selected retired Navy Vice Adm. James Stockdale as his running mate. Stockdale was a relative unknown in the rarefied air of presidential politics, but his resumé as a leader was impeccable. As the Department of Defense’s website notes, he was “the only three-star admiral to have worn both aviator wings and the Medal of Honor.” A prisoner of war in Vietnam, he spent almost eight years in the Hanoi Hilton. He was president of the Naval War College until his retirement from the service in 1979, by which point he had earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, four Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts. Perot was the last third-party candidate to meet the 15 percent threshold set by the Commission on Presidential Debates to appear on stage against the Republican and Democratic candidates — meaning Stockdale also appeared in the vice presidential debate. Attempting to address his relative anonymity straight off, Stockdale quipped, “Who am I? Why am I here?” America didn’t get the joke. It became Stockdale’s epitaph; nothing he did before or after would much stick in our cultural consciousness. Thanks in no small part to the media’s ill-concealed joy in reporting Stockdale’s failed attempt at humor, we all remember one of our great war heroes as a man who found his way onto a vice presidential debate stage by accident, as if he’d sleepwalked there in his bathrobe and slippers. Twenty-nine years and eight days after James Stockdale said those words in jest, the president of these United States stood on a stage and asked — in all seriousness — “What am I doing here?” And the media didn’t bat an eye. On…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week