Tag Archives: morality

A Fatuous Argument

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week concerning a Tennessee law that bans transgender medical procedures for minors. In the course of that session, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made this argument favoring striking the law:

…racial classifications and inconsistencies. I’m thinking in particular about Loving v Virginia [which struck, on 14th Amendment grounds State laws banning interracial marriage], and I’m wondering whether you thought about the parallels, because I see one as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.

This is just Brown Jackson’s attempt to claim a discrimination based on sex, which would make the law harder to sustain. The argument that the Tennessee ban is based on sex discrimination is risible on its face, since regardless of the life style chosen or the drugs and surgeries engaged in to support that life style, the individual remains the male or female he or she was conceived as all those months prior to birth.

Her false equivalence is silly. Trending Politics‘ Collin Rugg:

Yes, because banning a white person from marrying a black person is the same thing as cutting off a 10-year-old’s gen*tals.

Keep in mind, though, that this is the same woman who, at her confirmation hearing, was completely unable to say what a woman is.

Biden Administration Newspeak Dictionary in Action

Posted on by
1

The Supreme Court is hearing, this week, the Progressive-Democrat Biden administration’s argument that the Tennessee law (and by extension the similar laws of nearly half the States of our Union) that prohibits the administration of

medical treatments to minors if the purpose is to enable a gender transition or to address “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity[]”

is somehow unconstitutional. The case to watch is US v Skrmetti.

The administration’s case is centered on this:

A teenager whose sex assigned at birth is male can be prescribed testosterone to conform to a male gender identity, but a teenager assigned female at birth cannot.

The lawyers arguing for this go on to insist that this represents a violation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

No.

Babies aren’t assigned anything at birth. They are born with the characteristics they gained at egg fertilization; in the present case their male or female sex characteristic is demonstrated by their possessing XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes from that moment.

It’s illustrative of the hypocrisy of this administration that so many members chant “follow the science” and then proceed to ignore it. “Follow the science” to these worthies plainly is just a voodooist’s incantation cynically applied for street cred with the far left of our society.

Far more importantly, though, this use of the administration’s Newspeak Dictionary in lieu of a dictionary of American English is nakedly dishonest. This use of the administration’s Newspeak Dictionary in lieu of the Supreme Court’s long-standing (since Lynch v Alworth-Stephens Co) injunction to use the plain, obvious, and rational meaning is naked contempt for our court system.

The Tennessee law needs to be upheld in no uncertain terms, and these administration lawyers need to be severely sanctioned for their insistence on bringing this frivolous case and for their contempt of court premise.

“UCLA pleads for legal immunity….”

Posted on by
Reply

This is a measure of how deeply embedded antisemitism bigotry is in the managers running UCLA. They ordered, according to the charges in the case in which they demand immunity, exclusion zones that barred Jewish students from certain areas of the UCLA campus—areas which granted antisemitic protestors and terrorist supporters proclaiming Israeli genocide—veto authority over who could enter areas of campus those protestors occupied.

The defendants in the case already have had an injunction issued against them barring such actions and barring the defendants’ proclaiming programs that certain groups could have but that barred other groups from having similar or participating in the former. The presiding judge in that injunction opened his order with this [emphasis in the original]:

In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. UCLA does not dispute this. Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.

This is the bigotry from which these personages demand their immunity. They rationalize their demand to be excused from their bigotry with this:

“There was no blueprint for how to respond to a protest encampment,” and UCLA used de-escalation in the context of “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” situations, which justifies qualified immunity….

Right. We’re supposed to believe that the folks at the pinnacle of this major university’s management team had themselves to be told what to do before they acted. At the very least, that’s their confession that they’re unfit for the positions and should be fired for cause.

And they need to be sanctioned monetarily for their actions in furtherance of their bigotry along with any education-related licenses they may hold rescinded with prejudice.

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

It Needn’t End the Investigations

Posted on by
Reply

The lede amply summarizes the intrinsic dishonesty of the Biden family syndicate:

Joe Biden began his presidency with a series of lies about his son Hunter’s business dealings: the laptop was Russian disinformation, the family didn’t get China money, and the future president never consorted with influence-seeking associates.
And he is ending his tenure in the White House with a stunning broken pledge.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R, KY) seems to be giving up on the matter.

It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability

Now is not the time to quit, though, especially not now with Joe Biden’s penchant for lying laid so bare.

Even if there can be no criminal liability attached to any investigation outcomes, the investigations still need to run to prompt, thorough completions and their results published. Biden’s pardon—a President’s pardon—is constitutionally provided, but for limited purpose:

…Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That leaves open the possibility of civil consequences.

At the very least, there would be accountability in the public’s eye via publicity-driven retribution for the Biden syndicate and for those Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who supported the syndicate or who participated in the several coverups.

Let Them Eat Cake

Posted on by
Reply

No, wait. That was somebody else. What John Kerry said, in his fevered update to an almost as out of touch queen’s offer, was

Africans without electricity must select “the right kinds of electricity[.]”

Because they have the same freedom of choice and the same level of wealth as those French sans-culottes.

In America you have a right to be stupid, indeed.