[firebrand]

Fortunately, we are still able to vote according to our commonsense ability to foresee the unprovable results of our legislation and presidential choices. SCOTUS is not given this prerogative and so will always be battering down the walls of morality, as social results are not provable.

Griswold is seen by many as a cynical, premeditated attack on the unborn. Start with contraception for married people and proceed penumbra by penumbra to the slaughter of human beings.

Tell me I’m wrong about SCOTUS. I know there are precedents for ruling according to tradition and the interest of the state. Yet these principles are vague and legalistic and therefore don’t stand up to the itching ears of the uninformed and licentious—a winning combination that will cause us to lose as a culture.

[nathanbedford]

I think the problem with the Supreme Court goes back farther than Griswold vs. Connecticut, I think it goes back to the Garden of Eden. The biblical allegory tells us that man is perpetually in rebellion against God because he would be God. That is the sum and substance of the first and second Commandments and the essence of the Christian message which provides a prescription for that condition. Because one wears black robes and sits on the Supreme Court does not exempt one from this universal and immutable law.

Professionals and practitioners of the legal arts are members of a guild who have fashioned their own vocabulary and adopted their own folkways. They have even adopted their own eschatology. And the more they can obscure their doings the more they get to play God.

This is the battle the originalists are waging against the God players on the court. Scalia says there is a higher authority, a higher secular authority, which is the United States Constitution. His adversaries on the court, the God players, regard the Constitution as an impediment, an obstacle, to their ability to do good. So, Laws in Connecticut against contraception are absurd and it is an intolerable remnant of the dark age to criminally prosecute anyone for practicing safe sex. When the urge to do good becomes strong enough, they cast about for competing authority to justify their predelictions. Today there are flirting with international law. Yesterday they examined penumbras. But every day they are intellectually dishonest because they are working backwards from their own prejudice.

Like any Pharisee, a Supreme Court justice is wonderfully skilled at masking what he does. He resorts to all of the mind games conveniently provided to him by The Frankfurt School which in effect writes political correctness into the Constitution as a new and super amendment. Not the least of these tools available to a God playing jurist is resort to stare decisis which, after 200 years with accretion after accretion and subtle amendment after subtle amendment, distorts the document 180° away from its original intent, as you suggested. Properly used, stare decisis is a legitimate tool to seek out and preserve the purpose of the Constitution. But when it is perverted to justify the opposite, it becomes an effective weapon in the hands of a God player like Justice Ginsburg.

I see Supreme Court Justices who impose statism on us to be only less plain spoken exemplars of the same art practiced against us by leftist politicians.