Home » Posts tagged 'Supreme Court'
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
A True View of the World: Inside or Outside?
Anthony Kennedy and Casey
In the Supreme Court decision “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Robert P. Casey” in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion:
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.
Is that statement by a Supreme Court justice true? Can someone define his own concept of existence, of meaning? Everyone defines his own meaning? I say “no” to that, but it relates to how anyone obtains an accurate understanding of the world.
Anthony Kennedy wrote that personal preference, which originates from a person’s feelings or opinions, arising from the inside and not the outside, would override objective meaning. Therefore, objective truth contradicted freedom and essentially then America itself. Something is true as long as it corresponds to someone’s desires.
Authenticity and Relativism
Even more so, when truth is your truth, then it’s also authentic. Count that for goodness and beauty too. Stephen Presser writes about Kennedy’s line:
It undoubtedly owes a lot to Freudian psychology, to Rousseau’s notion that civilization places us in chains, and, most of all, to the concept usually associated with Abraham Maslow, “self-actualization.” The core of this philosophy seems to be that each of us has an authentic “self,” and the goal of life ought to be to maximize individual opportunities to express and develop it.
I read someone, who called the statement, “the epitome of relativistic thought.” Obviously, when applied to abortion, to which the Casey law was written, a baby is anything the person feels it to be, who wants the abortion. It is an invader of the mother or just a clump of cells or cancer.
Outside, Not the Inside
Before the 19th century in the United States, almost everyone saw truth as received from the outside, not the inside. God was separate from His creation. Truth, goodness, and beauty, which came from Him, outside of His creation, were transcendent. Hence, people called them the transcendentals.
On the outside was evidence. Revelation is the declaration of God. This is premodernism. Everything starts with God. But even modernism said evidence on the outside was necessary. As Ben Shapiro very often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Man’s observation falls below revelation though. Modernism assumed that absolutes existed, but their testing came through man’s reasoning.
Predmodern, Modern, Romanticism, Postmodern
Between Christ and the 19th century, this very long period is premodern. Sure, 1500 to 1800 is an early modern period. I don’t want to get into when modernism started. It depends on how you define it. Theological modernism started in the 19th century. That’s the time of the worldview shift reflected also in the Romantic Movement of the 19th century.
Modernism connected truth to man’s experience, his observation. Romanticism moved modernism all the way to the inside, where truth, goodness, and beauty were not longer transcendent, but completely immanent. New religions exploded in the 19th century. Truth lost objectivity. People’s opinion, their feelings, increasingly become more important to decide truth, goodness, and beauty. The movement toward truth is your truth is postmodernism.
God’s Word is the final arbiter of truth, but it isn’t the only one. 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church the pillar and ground for the truth. Still, however, that’s outside of your opinion, your thinking, and your feelings.
Even modernism depends on man’s thinking or reasoning. This continues to influence even conservatism in the world. Modernists confirm God’s revelation to man’s thinking, what one could call, rationalism. Scripture stands above man’s reasoning, what Peter calls the pure mother’s milk (1 Pet 2:2). It circumvents man’s observation and reasoning, coming directly from God, that is, from the outside. What it says is true, good, and beautiful.
Is Substantive Due Process Anything? What About This Court Arguing for a Substantive Right to Life? The War Begins
The founding fathers of the United States, the authors of the Constitution, also ratified by the states, wrote to limit the powers of the federal government. They listed the powers and reserved to the states those they didn’t. They included a bill of rights. This guaranteed to everyone in the entire nation those rights. The Constitution imparts all the powers of the federal government and all the rights guaranteed to all the people of the United States.
Are there other rights in the Constitution of the United States other than those enumerated in the bill of rights and its other amendments? The history of Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution both from loose and strict constructionists says, “Yes,” there are other rights. They call those substantive rights. They relate to life, liberty, and property, those three appearing only in the amendments, but assumed or implied rights from the history and tradition of the United States.
In Dobbs, the Supreme Court decided no right to abortion occurred in the Constitution, overturning Roe. In the 213 pages of Dobbs, the term “substantive” occurs 39 times.
Justice Alito Argues
Justice Alito writes the first usage of “substantive” on page 2 in this sentence:
The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.
Casey argued that a liberty or right to abortion did exist as a substantive right in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In its next usage also on page 2, Alito defines substantive rights as “those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.” Alito then on page 19 argues for the majority in Dobbs that the fourteenth amendment protects two categories of rights, first those “guaranteed by the first eight Amendments.” Alito continues on page 20:
The second category—which is the one in question here—comprises a select list of fundamental rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 3).
Alito explains on verse 22:
In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125 (1992). “Substantive due process has at times been a treacherous field for this Court,” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion), and it has sometimes led the Court to usurp authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.
Alito goes on to write (p. 41) that, based upon the “specific practices of states,” abortion did not fall within even the “outer limits” of these so-called substantive rights. Alito makes this important statement then on page 44:
[D]espite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy.
Alito does not reject the concept of substantive rights in the Constitution, but he writes for the majority, especially four Justices in the majority, that Roe failed on that important precedent.
Justice Thomas Concurs
Then Justice Thomas writes in his concurring opinion (p. 118):
As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” Johnson, 576 U. S., at 607–608 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); see also, e.g., Vaello Madero, 596 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“[T]ext and history provide little support for modern substantive due process doctrine”).
Furthermore, Thomas writes (p. 118):
Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.
Thomas argues that no substantive due process rights even exist. The various Supreme Courts invented these out of whole cloth.
As a result, Justice Thomas writes (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.
As an example, the Supreme Court argued in Obergefell a substantive due process right of same sex marriage based upon the fourteenth amendment. Thomas concludes (p. 123):
[I]n future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.).
Apparently substantive rights themselves exist in the constitution in addition to stated rights, but not substantive due process rights.
The Substantive Right to Life in the Constitution
What are substantive rights?
Substantive rights are rights to life, liberty, and property. Do we not agree that the Constitution guarantees the substantive right to life. Should the Supreme Court not have gone further with its ruling? Should it not have argued that abortion is in fact a violation of the right to life found in the Constitution of the United States? That is an argument based upon the Constitution and deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the United States.
I am sure that no state allowed abortion when the fourteenth amendment was ratified. States provided an unborn child a right to life. At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. Less evidence existed then than does now that life begins at conception. An ultrasound detects a fetal heartbeat at 6 1/2 to 7 weeks.
Some ask why Kavanaugh disappoints Trump? President Trump sees fear in Kavanaugh. The Democrats in the confirmation hearing framed him as a criminal, accusing him of sexual harassment when he was 17 years old. They intimidated him. He famously broke down and cried in that hearing. If Trump sees weakness, a language or decision that reflects that weakness, he questions it, using what I call, Trump-speak. Whatever pressure comes from the other side, he counteracts from his side. I understand it. If you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Kavanaugh wrote the following in his concurring opinion (pp. 125-128):
On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve. . . . Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this Court also must be scrupulously neutral. . . . This Court therefore does not possess the authority either to declare a constitutional right to abortion or to declare a constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Is the Constitution not pro-life? Is it really neutral on the matter of life? Does the Constitution not protect life as a substantive right? On the other hand, Kavanaugh sees same sex marriage as a substantive right. He implies that the Constitution is not neutral on same sex marriage, when he writes (p. 133):
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
Along the lines of substantive rights in the constitution, consider if Kavanaugh applied his Roe test to Obergefell by writing the following: On the question of same sex marriage, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-sex marriage nor anti-same sex marriage. He doesn’t see a substantive right to life, but he does see a substantive right to same sex marriage. Can this be true? Kavanaugh reads like a lie.
Dobbs was but a first battle in a war for life in this country. In one sense, it is a pretext for the actual war that must occur. We must all start by telling the truth, not only about abortion itself, but about the Dobbs decision. We can all celebrate what it did do, but we also must be realistic about what it did not.
Dobbs didn’t do away with abortion. The United States aborted almost a million babies last year. Everyone of those can still happen if someone wants. This war is far from over.
An Analysis of Supreme Court Overturn of Roe and the Lie of the Dissenting Opinion
Early Friday my phone notified me the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It brought great happiness, comparable to the 2016 election. I knew it was happening, but it got off my radar, so when I saw it, it was adulation. Praise God! I looked for a copy of the decision, downloaded the pdf, and started to read. My mind gobbled Alito’s text with delight and refreshment. Outside of the Bible, this doesn’t happen much.
I celebrate Samuel Alito and the four other justices. They showed great courage. They did something that I will never forget, a highlight of my life. I was eleven years old at the Roe v. Wade decision and did not even know it happened. I’ve lived almost my entire life under its evil effects.
Even as I say that, the most courageous was Clarence Thomas. I separate him from the entire group with his concurring opinion. Same sex marriage is not in the constitution either. He wrote (p. 119):
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous.”
Obergefell decided same sex marriage. The court passed that on the same basis as Roe. On the other hand, Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion, to distinguish himself, wrote:
First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in . . . . Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.
I hope he reconsiders this point if same sex marriage comes to the court again.
The decision showed three basic opinions, represented by a majority of five, minority of three, and then Chief Justice Roberts alone. The majority said nothing personal about the morality of abortion. The five wrote the Constitution says nothing about abortion and contains no right to abortion therein. The Constitution neither commends or condemns abortion. Roe v. Wade found a right where there was none. It was unconstitutional.
Roberts upheld the Mississippi law as constitutional based upon a generous interpretation of Casey. Even though the arguments required to choose one way or the other, he chose silence on an abortion right. Roberts kicked the abortion can down the road, siding neither way on its constitutionality, attempting, it seems, to please both sides.
The minority of three wrote:
Today, The Court . . . says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs.
The Court did not say that. These three Supreme Court justices lied. The Court said nothing about whether a woman has a right to abortion. It said the Constitution does not say anything about a right to abortion. The Supreme Court does not decide what rights people have or do not have. It does decide constitutional rights. Is a constitutional right to abortion in the constitution? The majority said, no.
Right now a state cannot force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term. She can travel to another state with legal abortion and get one. Everyone knows this. The governor of California says it will give sanctuary to pregnant women who want to kill their babies.
As you and I read opinions such as written by the minority, perhaps you ask, “What is a woman?” Or, “Who is ‘her’?” The three liberal judges function according to outdated language and meaning. Doesn’t the patriarchy force its bias and its meaning of existence and reality through gendered language?
Feminists could support the Dobbs decision. It establishes the existence of women. For the court to force women to have their babies, there must be women. What does that mean for transgender rights? The Casey decision argued in 1992 a constitutional “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” These words followed Justice Anthony Kennedy’s now very famous sentence from the Casey opinion:
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.
Yes, Kennedy was apparently one of the conservative faction of justices, seen as a moderate, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was no conservative in the spirit of William Buckley.
Donald Trump did a better job choosing justices than Ronald Reagan, who also chose Sandra Day O’Connor. Take a moment to thank Donald J. Trump. He picked three of these justices in the majority. Three for three. Let’s hear it for Trump. True conservatives should give Trump credit, but many won’t.
Mitt Romney tweeted out support of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. Could we trust him to have made the choices Trump did? I don’t think so, but he could impeach Trump for an appropriate call to the Ukrainian president.
The Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe was no thanks to Anti-Trumpers, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. Most are further to blame for the horrific consequences of 2020. This includes John Piper and David French. I concur with this Mollie Hemingway answer to French.
So thankful your anti-Trumpist obsession and damaged ego failed to keep the country from this moment. If you had gotten your way, this day would have never happened. You should repent for your continual slanders against those who had far more courage and wisdom.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) June 24, 2022
George Bush selected David Souter and George W. Bush did Chief Justice Roberts. Thankfully the latter also picked Samuel Alito, the author of Dobbs. This decision would not have happened under Romney or McCain and didn’t under the Bushes.
Liberty Magazine writes the following about Anthony Kennedy’s words in Casey, the infamous abortion decision after Roe:
Though sounding more like a discourse on Spinozean metaphysics than on constitutional jurisprudence, this sentence has reached the level of notoriety among judicial and political conservatives that “separate but equal” once did among civil libertarians, or “material substratum” did among post-Enlightenment idealists.
No U.S. Supreme Court dictum in decades has faced such vilification as has poor Justice Kennedy’s 28 words. Robert Bork called the phrase indicative of “New Age jurisprudence”; William Bennett derided it as an “open-ended validation of subjectivism” that paves the way for drug abuse, assisted suicide, prostitution, and “virtually anything else”: George Will said it was “gaseously” written; Michael Uhlman labeled it a “thing of almost infinite plasticity”; the editors of First Things called it the “notorious mystery passage”; and on and on.
Kennedy’s take on liberty fits very nicely with a naturalist’s view of the world, turning language and meaning into one’s personal Gumby toy.
If I could brag about any one aspect of a reading of Dobbs by Samuel Alito, it’s the return to objective, plain writing. He wrote like words meant something. No one can follow that sentence by Kennedy, but it allowed for the perverseness we see in modern culture. Your truth is your truth. Your liberty is your liberty. That’s not a baby, but a fetal, clump of cells.
The argument buttressing a right to abortion now undermines the definition of woman. Most of those out there protesting the decision could and should protest both sides of the decision. Both sides used oppressive and sexist language that uphold the patriarchy. The liberal side does it in a more subtle and insidious way, thereby causing even worse damage to the LGBTQIA agenda.
The new, correct word for mother, or its replacement, abandoning the former meaning of woman, is gestator. It’s obvious that this movement does not have everyone on the same page. Their gender is fluid and the movement itself is too. It’s changing and mutating so fast, it doesn’t have time to finish its handbook. This forces liberal judges to use the outdated terms like “woman” and “her.” You think I’m joking.
In a refreshing bit of honesty, unlike Roe and Casey, a gestator calling their self Sophie Lewis, in answer to Dobbs provides unmitigated clarity with her The Nation article: “Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK!” This entity (person, whatever) says: “Dishonest sugar-coating did not work. Let’s stop. It didn’t work. Let’s call it what it is, killing.” Another word I would use, that Sophie did not, is “murder.” So here we have it. Samuel Alito was clear and so was Sophie Lewis. Exhilarating truthfulness.
When you and I look at the protestors, they represent a profane culture. They wear their piercings, falsely colored hair, and they speak streams of expletives and destroy private and public property. This reflects the postmodern philosophy of Sartre, the French existentialist, who said that existence preceded essence. Humans have no essential nature, thus no morality besides what every man makes for himself. They don’t see themselves as accountable to God. The appearance of Dobbs protestors mirrors this existential philosophy aligned with the Anthony Kennedy statement in Casey. Their costumes are the uniform of their view of reality. They define their own essence.
Not everyone will say it like Sophie Lewis, but the reason why an assassin could show up at Justice Kavanaugh’s house after the leak of the Dobbs opinion was because “killing is OK.” That is also why a large majority of the media says little to nothing in opposition. Their liberty allows for murder. A baby may exist but cannot define his essence. A critical theory justifies killing as the essence of liberty.
Since the Supreme Court announced the ruling on Friday, plain language came to the surface. At a pro-abortion protest a man says, ala Sophie Lewis, he “loves killing babies.” Many women call it the best decision they ever made. Over ten years ago, I walked in a large pro-life march in San Francisco. Those protesting the march on the side of the road were the most vile and lewd people I’ve ever seen in my life. Their signs, language, and appearance were as bad as I’ve ever seen as an attempt to intimidate the march.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is so good. The war, however, is just begun. Hopefully, it won’t be a real war with real bullets, one that the Supreme Court provided the previous day with its concealed carry decision.
What Is Illegal in Door-to-Door Evangelism in the United States?
Contrary to a typical criticism of door-to-door evangelism, I don’t believe that it’s the only way to evangelize. There are many scriptural ways to preach the gospel besides door-to-door, and I would teach all of them. However, I don’t believe a church can be obedient to the Bible without going door-to-door, because that’s the only way to preach the gospel to everyone, which God wants from us. It is also seen in the example of Jesus and the Apostles. Why would someone argue against that?
By my experience, which is a lot at this point, door-to-door specifically doesn’t see the most conversions. That doesn’t mean don’t do it. I can relate that many people can be saved through the contacts of a person who is saved through door-to-door, the contacts from one person being saved. Those are still related to door-to-door. But I digress from the point of my post.
The area of Oregon where we’re starting our church has many, many more “no soliciting” signs than the San Francisco Bay Area, where I started a church and then pastored it for thirty-three years. I’m estimating at least five times more no soliciting signs here than there. They are everywhere and they are also very inventive, long lists of things the person doesn’t want.
I’ve seen this sign at least five times: “No Soliciting: Seriously. Don’t ring the bell. Don’t make it awkward.”
I’ve been kicked out of two apartment complexes going door to door, and as I was leaving another neighborhood, someone told me I couldn’t do that and she would be taking it to the board. Last week someone called me about a door-hanger, very insulting. He said something like this: “You obviously don’t read the Bible, so at least read my no-soliciting sign.” And then he threatened me with physical harm if I came again. I know it wasn’t me, but someone else in our new church, who had put the hanger on his door.
It’s a little worse in the coronavirus era, because people have the virus card that they carry very easily. You’re there to preach the gospel, and they’re there to preach the dangers of the virus and the foolishness of not wearing the mask. I don’t argue with them. I let them spew forth their doctrine of physical safety, as I stand over ten feet away outdoors. It is a message of self-righteousness, as they are preaching a message of physical salvation.
So I’ve had questions about the legality of door-to-door. What is protected by the United Constitution? People already don’t want to go door-to-door, so if there is the further layer of illegality, people will feel justified in not doing this thing that they don’t want to do.
In no necessary order, first, someone can legally kick us out of an apartment complex if it has a sign saying that they don’t allow evangelism or the like on their property. That doesn’t mean you can’t evangelize there. What it does mean is that the complex has the right to tell you to leave. As long as they don’t tell you, you can keep doing it until they tell you. When they tell you, understand that they have the right to kick you out. It then becomes a trespassing situation. Usually how it happens is that someone angrily calls management, complaining. I’ve been told that it’s fine to visit someone who lives there, that you already know, but you can’t keep going cold turkey, once they tell you to stop.
Why go to an apartment complex when it might result in getting kicked out? You already know the answer. They need the gospel there, so keep trying until you get kicked out. If you get kicked out, then you tried. I would suggest put door hangers in apartment complexes where you’ve been kicked out.
Second, door hangers are not legally solicitation. They are not. If you see a no-solicitation sign on a door, put on a door hanger. A door hanger has an official, legal title. It is canvassing, and canvassing is protected by the Constitution. It doesn’t say it in the Constitution, but rulings have been made by the Supreme Court that allow for canvassing.
For canvassing, there is a limitation. If someone posts a “no trespassing” sign, then you could be charged with trespassing. That’s also a ruling by the Supreme Court. I never saw a no trespassing sign in town or the city in the San Francisco Bay Area. I’ve seen again about five of those at least in Oregon. I don’t go to a door with a no trespassing sign.
Three, is door-to-door evangelism solicitation? Legally, it isn’t. This statement was made in the decision, United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990):
Solicitation requires action by those who would respond: The individual solicited must decide whether or not to contribute (which itself might involve reading the solicitor’s literature or hearing his pitch), and then, having decided to do so, reach for a wallet, search it for money, write a check, or produce a credit card. As residents of metropolitan areas know from daily experience, confrontation by a person asking for money disrupts passage and is more intrusive and intimidating than an encounter with a person giving out information. One need not ponder the contents of a leaflet or pamphlet in order mechanically to take it out of someone’s hand, but one must listen, comprehend, decide and act in order to respond to a solicitation.
Solicitation relates to a “contribution” legally. The Supreme Court differentiated between the two in this recent decision. In so doing, the Supreme Court is saying this is protected speech.
You could stand and argue with someone about the meaning of solicitation, but it’s going to be fruitless. You would win in court. It’s not you. They probably mean you though, when they put up the sign. For that reason, I honor the “no soliciting” sign to mean “no evangelism,” if it’s on an individual door. I leave a tract or door hanger on the door and move on. At the same time, I’ve expressed that I don’t care if you go ahead and knock on that door or ring that doorbell for evangelism. I’ve done it many times.
What I’ve written here leaves plenty of opportunity for door to door evangelism. It’s saying that you can canvass everywhere, which means leaving the gospel on someone’s door. The man who threatened me for a door hanger, I take him with a grain of salt. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Evangelism is not solicitation, so for sure canvassing isn’t solicitation.
Recent Comments