The Fundamentals Must be Already Fixed and In Place

No More Betrayals

Sen. Josh Hawley Sets The Standard For Conservative Supreme Court Justices

'If there is no indication in their record that at any time they have acknowledged that Roe was wrong at the time it was decided, then I’m not going to vote for them.'

Christopher Bedford
The Federalist

Social conservatives are done being taken for granted by the GOP: That’s the message Sen. Josh Hawley shot across the party and administration’s bow Sunday, setting a brave and admirable standard for Christian legislators that is sure to pit him against powerful Washington Republicans and Democrats.

“I will vote only for those Supreme Court nominees who have explicitly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided.” Hawley told The Washington Post. “By explicitly acknowledged, I mean on the record and before they were nominated.”

“I don’t want private assurances from candidates. I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predictions. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”

The junior senator from Missouri is a member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, through which any of President Donald Trump’s potential future nominees to the Supreme Court must pass before being brought to the floor for a vote. Conservative judges have been a major point for this administration, beginning during the campaign when, working closely with The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, Trump released a list of who he would nominate, exciting then-skeptical conservatives.

Since then, conservatives have been routinely disappointed by Republican-nominated justices, quietly complaining about the GOP and the powerful, conservative Federalist Society’s tendency to focus on justices who have established records of conservative and libertarian business and government rulings, but no firmly established record of rulings that protect either marriage or the lives of the unborn.

Secularism On the March in the US

Recent Anti-Church Supreme Court Ruling 

Threatens Americans’ Most Valuable Freedom

In denying the special importance of religious freedom in American life, the recent Supreme Court decision has only facilitated the ongoing removal of religion from the public square.

Auguste Meyrat
The Federalist

As America’s cities burn and leftist sympathizers make headlines, the U.S. Supreme Court quietly passed a potentially horrendous ruling against religious freedom. Chief Justice John Roberts, now replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy as the reliable swing vote, sided with liberal justices and approved of California’s restrictions on the number of people who could attend a religious service.

The United Pentecostal Church contended these limits violated their congregants’ freedom to practice their faith and exhibited a bias against churches since other businesses, such as abortion clinics, liquor stores, and pot dispensaries, could reopen without similar constraints.

According to Roberts, these limits, made to slow the spread of the Wuhan virus, did not violate people’s First Amendment right to worship freely: “Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”

Roberts never bothers to explain how this is true, important because an order to limit church capacity necessarily “prohibits the free exercise of religion” directly stated in the First Amendment. He simply moves past this absurd claim and maintains that other activities involving large gatherings face “similar or more severe restrictions,” as though this obvious point demonstrates why stripping people of their fundamental rights is acceptable.

Sown To the Wind . . . and Now Comes the Whirlwind

Democrats Are Reaping The ‘Whirlwind’ 

The media and Democrats were enraged when Brett Kavanaugh warned that their unethical behavior against him might have consequences. They should have listened.

By Mollie Hemingway
The Federalist


Brett Kavanaugh was a very difficult Supreme Court nominee for liberals to oppose. He had a stellar reputation, an impeccable record, and a genial disposition. While members of the Resistance held a protest on the steps of the Supreme Court minutes after President Trump announced him as the pick to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, their early efforts to keep him off the bench showed little promise.

All that changed in mid-September 2018, when the Washington Post carefully packaged and presented Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her when she was in high school. The media and Democrats immediately latched onto the accusation in a desperate attempt to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed.

It wasn’t the quality of the allegation that led to this reaction. Blasey Ford had no evidence she had ever met Kavanaugh, much less that he had tried to rape her. She wasn’t sure about any detail related to the event other than that she had precisely one beer and that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her.

She didn’t know how she got to the alleged event, where it was, how she got home, or whose house it was. None of the four witnesses she identified to reporters as having been at the event in question supported her claim. That included her close friend Leland Keyser, who was pressured by mutual acquaintances to change her testimony that she had no recollection of the event in question. Kavanaugh had an army of close friends and supporters who testified to his character throughout his adolescence and adulthood.

Nevertheless, over the next ten days, thousands of articles were published in newspapers and online while broadcast and cable news outlets devoted their entire schedule to covering the accusation.

A Man of Great Honour

Clarence Thomas’s Life Repudiates The Left’s Hatred Of America

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced down a 'high-tech lynching' by the same people who now claim to be America's arbiters of racial justice. He has every reason to be vindictive and chooses not to be.

Joy Pullmann
The Federalist

Clarence Thomas’s life is an emotional testament to the persistence of God’s grace amid the highs and lows of the American story. “I come from regular stock,” says the highest-ranking, longest-serving African-American public servant in a new documentary, “Created Equal: Clarence Thomas In His Own Words.” His story is at once the epitome of the best and the worst of America.

Its depiction in “Created Equal” and his 2008 autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” deserve a prominent place among public knowledge of the civil rights movement, the Supreme Court, black American history, and great Americans. Thomas has earned his place in his country’s history, which means he deserves focus in Black History Month curricula and similar celebrations and inquiries.



Without shying from the serious reasons he and many other unjustly treated Americans might have for cynicism about the project of “liberty and justice for all,” the associate Supreme Court justice also demonstrates how to transcend hatred with magnanimity. It’s a lesson we all can stand to learn better.

Justice Thomas has legitimate reasons to hate America.

Faux Freedoms That Destroy and Tear Societies Apart

Idiots And Their Allies

We now live in a culture which has boldly asserted that one's identity--including self-constructed identity--is reality.  It represents the human rights of an individual.  This perspective has been officially recognized by the US Supreme Court. 

One's personal self-image represents one's self-esteem.  Modern secularist society frowns on the idea that one's self-esteem may be traduced by the law, or by anything else for that matter. 

In the 1992 Planned Parenthood case, Justice Kennedy notoriously stated: "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."  [Augusto Zimmermann, Christian Foundations of the Common Law. Volume 2: The United States.  (Brisbane: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), p. 182.]

But there is a sub-text lurking behind in the shadows.

Corruption On A Grand Scale

Disingenuous and Depraved

The Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh circus continues.  Firstly we have reports of an  idiotic bookseller, Amazon attempting to censor positive reviews of a recent book describing the circus.  For a bookseller acting prejudicially against books it sells and (apparently) does not like provides an eyebrow raising moment.

Why Is Amazon Blocking Reviews Of The No. 1 Best-Selling ‘Justice On Trial?’

Amazon is blocking the book reviews of many verified purchasers of the No. 1 best-selling book 'Justice on Trial' by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino.

By Sean Davis
Amazon is refusing to publish many reviews and ratings of the No. 1 best-selling “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court,” according to multiple reports from readers who purchased the book directly from Amazon.

The behind-the-scenes dive into the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which was written by Carrie Severino and The Federalist’s Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway, debuted at No. 1 on Amazon’s list of best-selling books.

The Federalist independently confirmed that many reviews by verified purchasers of “Justice on Trial” were not being published by Amazon. Some fake reviews from non-purchasers and reviews from those who clearly had not read the book, however, were published immediately.

Then there is the book itself.  An extensive review by Nathanael Blake of "Justice on Trial" which documents Kavanaugh's nomination process, now that the shouting has faded, leaves us aghast at the senseless, unprincipled idiocy of most Democratic Congressmen and Senators.  Could they have been that unprincipled, idiotic, and corruptly perverted?  Yes, they could.

True, Historically Accurate Position

The Establishment Clause Revived

The "Establishment Clause" of  the US Constitution represents the first amendment made to the US Constitution.  Wikipedia provides a summary of its intent and meaning:

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The Establishment Clause was based on a number of precedents, including the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Pennsylvania and New Jersey colonial constitutions. An initial draft by John Dickinson was prepared in conjunction with his drafting the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, then-congressman James Madison prepared another draft which, following discussion and debate in the First Congress, would become part of the text of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which allows individual citizens freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs.

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation forcing an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, it does not prevent the placement of religious symbols on government premises.

The whole idea of the Establishment Clause is that there shall be no established religion in the United States--that is, a religion established by the Congress or the Executive Branch of government. 

In recent decades non-establishment has come to mean that the State is required to be functionally atheistic.

Twisting in the Winds

Joe Biden Should Apologize To Clarence Thomas, Not To Anita Hill

Apparently, even a favorable hearing in front of the whole world is not enough for a woman alleging that a man has sexually wronged her. Now we have to rewrite history to affirm allegations that the evidence contradicts.

[It did not take long.  We now see the truth about Anita Hill once again coming to the fore, as the real record and testimony of her false claims against Clarence Thomas (then US Supreme Court nominee) has to be republished.  The Democrats feel the desperate need to rewrite history in order to make it conform to their worldview.  Jo Biden, a recently announced candidate for the presidency, is now in the unfortunate position of having to walk back his actions of nearly 30 years ago.  He is twisting in the winds.  Ed.]

Inez Feltscher Stepman
The Federalist

History becomes myth, myths become legends, and legends become unquestionable. And if a biased media is writing the story, even dubious tales can turn into unassailable “fact” with the right combination of narrative and time. This has been the case with Anita Hill.

Hill’s testimony alleging that Clarence Thomas, then a nominee for the Supreme Court, repeatedly harassed her in the workplace made for explosive politics back in 1991. It’s reemerging as an issue in 2019 thanks to the new presidential candidacy of Joe Biden. As senator, Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee, and in the eyes of the Democratic voters he hopes to court, he permitted too many tough questions attempting to ascertain the truth from Hill.

To be clear, Biden voted against Thomas’ confirmation. There’s even good reason to think he conducted the hearing in such a way as to give Hill every advantage, including leaving witnesses of highly dubious credibility, who would have likely undermined her own, off the roster. This act has been transformed over time into a claim that Biden stacked the deck against her.

Apparently, even a favorable hearing in front of the whole world is not enough for a woman alleging that a man has sexually wronged her. Asking basic questions and cross-referencing contrary evidence, as the committee did, is not acceptable in the era of “Believe All Women” hashtags.

Justice Kavanaugh's Apologia

I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

Yes, I was emotional last Thursday. I hope everyone can understand I was there as a son, husband and dad.

By Brett M. Kavanaugh
Wall Street Journal


I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law.

Manufactured Wrath

When the Spittle Flies, Reasoned Perspective Is Always Lost

Politics is (more often than not) a dirty business.  One of the most blessed circumstances for New Zealand is that we are a small nation and that it is hard to "fool most of the people all of the time".  Nevertheless we have our moments.  The Christchurch Creche Case is one such. 

In the US we have recently witnessed the mob braying for (metaphorical) blood--Justice Kavanaugh's to be precise.  Now, it is true that the more sanguine types amongst the opposition readily acknowledge that their oppo was tactical in nature and had less concern with the truth than with what they perceived to be the far, far greater good.  In particular, throwing Kavanaugh out of the running to be a Justice of the US Supreme Court would prevent the Court from being run by conservative justices for the next three or so decades.  The was a fertile time for imaginations to frame Kavanaugh as a really nasty, unsuitable, wicked, and vile creature. 

One of the things which amused me during this desperate imbroglio was the cacophonous silence amongst the mob over Kavanaugh's numerous written judgements which were readily available for all to read.  It seems that his work and output as a judge won respect from the Left, the Right, and the Centre.  Why?

Sinkholes Aplenty

Beyond Credulity

9 Reasons Why Christine Blasey Ford Not Credible

John Nolte
Breitbart News

Rachel Mitchell, the veteran sex crimes prosecutor chosen by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, has filed a report that points out Ford’s inconsistencies and apparent deceptions.

“In the legal context, here is my bottom line,” she writes. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence.”  She adds, “Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” This means Ford’s story does no reach the 50-50 level of more likely than not.

Here is her full report on her interview/interrogation of Christine Blasey Ford:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389821761/content#from_embed

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow, Idaho

On Kavanaugh and Due Process

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

SINCE THIS IS SUCH A TEACHABLE MOMENT . . .

Allow me to ruffle a completely different set of feathers for a moment. What is being done to Brett Kavanaugh has been in fact absolutely appalling. Let no one conclude that I am in anyway trying to minimize what an atrocity this thing was, and which it remains.

Due process matters. Justice matters. Presumption of innocence matters. Centuries of jurisprudential tradition must not be ditched because a badly educated generation of Americans got themselves into a moral panic, or to use a more accurate phrase for it, got themselves into something of an immoral doodah. Apparently, when the mob outside the courtside is yelling something like social justice for all! that makes all the subsequent proceedings okay.

But there is a deeper cultural reason why we have been treated to this spectacle of one of the most respected judges in the county being given the full treatment. This could not have happened unless our respect for due process had been eroding across the board for decades—but no national outcry over it because it is being done to the little guy. I am talking about the absence of real due process in things like asset forfeitures, Kelo-like eminent domain seizures, the administrative courts of the regulative state, big data surveillance, and a bunch of other legal atrocities.

I was contented enough with the Kavanaugh nomination because I believe he will be reliably far more conservative than Anthony Kennedy. And I believe that his presence on the bench will present a serious threat to Roe, which is the issue of our time.

That said, Kavanaugh wouldn’t have been my first pick for the Court.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow (About Properly Celebrating Jehu)

A Supreme Court Nomination Rannygazoo

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

So Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of July. This news was received with something like melting-face-consternation by the denizens of the Left, who have been pretty unhappy with Trump so far as it is. . . . For any “principled” conservatives left who object to the whole show on “principle”—and I mean all three of you—we do need to review what the heck has been happening

I want to make a basic distinction that we must hang on to here, which is that there is a profound difference between being invested in Trump’s character, personality, outlook, philosophy, and so on, and enjoying Trump’s character, personality, outlook, philosophy, and so on. Those in the former category have boarded—some early and some late—the Trump train. He’s their man. They believe in him. For all kinds of reasons, many of which I have explained a number of times, this represents a genuine spiritual hazard. Trust not in princes

But those in the latter category have decided that—at least with regard to His providential and inscrutable decrees—God’s commitment to #NeverTrump has been inadequate, and so it is perfectly all right to review everything that is happening, and to take it all into account. Not only so, but if we take it all into account, we will find ourselves enjoying the spectacle. I can’t tell you when I have enjoyed a spectacle more.

The US Supreme Court--A Window of Opportunity Just Opened

Momentous Days Ahead--One Way Or the Other

The retirement of Justice Kennedy (81) from the US Supreme Court opens up a door for Trump and the US Senate.  If a suitably conservative justice is nominated by the President and supported by the Senate it is possible that the Court will be weighted towards traditional, text orientated interpretation of the law in the United States for a long time to come.  

We need to remember that the US Supreme Court was deliberately designed to be the third nexus of the federal government (the others being the legislature (Congress and the Senate) and the President and his Federal agencies.  It was always a key check and balance upon the other two branches, keeping them "honest" as it were.

Justice Kennedy has been a festering sore on the Court. The reason is that he was an intellectual and judicial gadfly.  Here is National Review's assessment of his tenure:

From Bob McCoskrie's Blog

Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Baker

Endorses His Decision Not To Make A Wedding Cake for Homosexual Couple

by McBlog2

Family First Comment: Great decision….

“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”#FreeToBelieve

The US Supreme Court yesterday ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.  In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy that leaves many questions unanswered, the court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not adequately taken into account the religious beliefs of baker Jack Phillips.

In fact, Kennedy said, the commission had been hostile to the baker’s faith, denying him the neutral consideration he deserved. While the justices split in their reasoning, only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented….

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips, praised the ruling. “Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage,”she said “The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”

Judicial Rebellion Quashed

Radical Lower-Court Justices Body Slammed

The US Supreme Court has handed down a momentous decision.  Yes, said the justices, the President of the United States can stop visitors and migrants from entering the United States when national security is at stake.

This case is momentous for a number of reasons.  At the top of the list is the Supreme Court's body slam of judicial overreach where the un-elected judicial branch of government was arrogating to itself more and more powers over the legislative and executive branches of government.

David French reviews the case and decision:

A Step Back Towards the Future

Gorsuch--A Principled Conservative Choice

Two world views, two realities.  Most people acknowledge there is deep division in the United States over ideology.  The existence of such an ideological or philosophical clash is strange to many throughout the West.  For many, there is no clash of civilization.  Countries like Germany and France and Belgium (that is, old Europe) are reflexively held in the grip of just one of the world views.  In other words, there is very little ideological war in such countries.

Consequently, when politicians suddenly emerge from the consensus to express ideas more consistent with Christendom they are immediately branded as extremists, right through to being called neo-Nazis.  But in the United States the conservative position is more widely held.  The ideological struggle is more real, more evenly balanced.

One of the battles has been the nomination (and now confirmation) of Neil M. Gorsuch to a vacant seat on the Supreme Court, left by the untimely death of Antonin Scalia.  The Left hated him--nothing personal, you understand--it's just a clash of views regarding civilisation itself. There have been some very unusual aspects to his nomination.

Keeping Up--With a Little Help, Part III

An Unintended Advocate 

OK, one final post on Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nomination to take the seat of the late Antonin Scalia on the bench of the US Supreme Court.  This quotation and reflection comes from the radical (establishment) Left.  We are referring, of course, to the New York Times--which, along with the Democratic Party it idolizes, has marched majestically off into the loony zone.

The editorialists at the Times have duly considered Neil Gorsuch and decided that he is entirely unfit for the job Supreme Court justice.  He is a radical.  He is an extremist.  He is dangerous.  You know, the usual eructations, when anyone is put forward who is slightly to the right of that forgettable "what's his name" who ran against Hillary in the Democratic primary.

Rod Dreher at The Federalist quotes from a correspondent on the matter: