Archive for October 6th, 2006

The Court is the LAST Resort

The only idea that I ever got credit for was my statement that, in every big change in our society, the federal courts are always the last resot of those who were going out of power.

In 1934 the courts ruled for the Indians and Andrew Jackson told them to go to hell. In 1857 the Court ruled that the congress could not prevent slavery from being extended i ntot he western territories and the 1860 Republican platform told them to go to hell.

In the 1930s the courts tried to stop the New Deal and Roosevelt tried to pack the court. History says he succeeded, because hsi court-packing plan was rejected. But he kept getting reelected and got himself his own court. Today the courts back every 1960s-style “Social Experiment.”

When the courts are your last bastion, a person who knows history puts the undertaker on alert.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

9 Comments

Alan B.

NOT SPAM

It is sad that most people never question what they are being fed. Someone made a comment on the idiot box that social welfare proposals use to be sold to the american people over a period of time. Now they just go on camera and say we are going to propose this program, minus any debate, its gotten to easy. I know many people who do not have the foggiest idea what goes on in politics and the special interest that drives this, they are not dumb, hell most of these people can rattle off useless sports stats all day. PC or PRETTY WEIRD is a paper house ready to fall, if we can get a good breeze going it will blow away like dust.

Comment by Alan B.

ME:

Our society is running entirely on inertia, which is what the Soviet Empire was running on. One truism among those of us who won an election was, “We will now go in and demand change and enjoy our offices and power and hope that nothing changes.”

Even the courts, which all of us see as power-grabbing, have not really been grabbing power since Earl Warren died. There are activist judges, but most people leave it to the courrts because nobody else is going to decide.
In 1973 there was a tiny rebellion against hte Supreme Court’s Roe versus Wade decision which struck down all antiabortion laws, just asthe court had struck down all anti-miscegenation laws a few years before. There is no relation between the protests of 1973 the Pro-Life Movement and the Pr-Life movement of today.

The Pro-Life Movement does not have a single argument that cannot be used against that Holy of Holies, the 1967 decision that struck down all state anti-miscegeneation laws. In fact, since all the courts upheld those laws in the past and early state did not even legislate on abortion, the case against the Holy of Holies is much, much stronger. But no one, least of all leaders of the Catholic Church, can criticize the earlier decision.

But they don’t get paid to be consistent. They get paid to protest and forget.

Fro a respectable conservative, forgetting what led to this is more vital than his protest making sense. That is why all professional conservatives today are NEOconservatives. They cna protest the RESULTS of liberalism, but they cannot admit that us bigots warned them this would be the natural results of what Saint John the Kennedy and Saint Martin Luther the King were doing.

The last thing a professional Pro-Lifer wants is for the courts to REVERSE Roe v. Wade. They simply could not make a living outside that movement. And this is not only true of the professionals. Many, many people have gained a reputation inside the Pro-Life Movement. If it ended tomorrow, in victory or defeat, they would have NOTHING.

When I arranged for thousands of working people to come to Washington in chartered buses at their own expense and march jointly against the education establishment, the Boston anti-busing leaderwhip was very jealous of me. My tiny team had done press conferences and writing and speaking and setting up press conferences for protests against dirty textbooks in West Virginia and they came to the joint march. Liouisville anti-busers came to the march. But the Boston movement was old and established.

As soon as the Boston group got to DC, they began their usual fight over who their spokesman would be. This was for big stakes. After all, this movement was led by people who had nothing ELSE but that anti-busing movement to make them spokesmen for anything.

As it turned out, I did the speaking for all the groups, but not because I wanted to. The whole point was to have a press conference for THEM. But the media HAD to quote me because I was the only one the media COULD quote.

This was a giant, obviously grassroots march right there in Washington, to which senators and congressmen spoke onthe Capitol steps. The media would prefer to ignore it, but they couldn’t.

On the other hand, the last thing the media wanted to do was to get quotes about how it was Mrs O’Hara or Mr. Marciano who spoke for South Boston. I wrote their stuff for them, and by default I weas the spokesmen, because nobody disagreed with anything I said.

In a melting pot, everything has to go to the courts for the same reason. There is no other source of decisions. All the liberals and respectable conservatives and NOW pros and pro-life pros make their living, and they are all relieved to have somebody else make the decision. In our system, the ONLY group that can make decisions on social issues is the court system. The president avoids these matters. Nobody can get anything through congress. There are only three branches of this government, so who is left?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

5 Comments

Temperance versus temperance

A temperate approach tempers something. That is to say, it moderates something.

If you are temperate in the use of alcohol it mwans TWO things:

1) you do not drink to excess and

2) You DO drink moderately.

There are two types of people who are NOT temperate on alcohol,

1) Those who drink too much and

2) Those who do not drink at all.

We take it for granted that the Temperance movement is not only dedicated to 2), but that it demands a law to ENFORCE 2).

We take it for granted that anything called Anti-Racist demands an end to the white race.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment