ELEGY IN THE MIST: THE PROMISE FADES ANEW
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH AND THE SENATE JUDICIARY HEARINGS
March 25, 2017
One of the arguments made by Traditional Catholics for voting for Trump
was the Supreme Court, an imperative to be certain for all those
concerned with the natural law and right reason at the very least. In
another era this would have been persuasive; however, I am not only
old, I am an old hand at the Supreme Court watch "game", and serious
game it is as the stakes are so high since every aspect of our chaotic
modern life is political to the core, the heck with the traditional
understanding of human nature, grace, the immortal human soul and the
right relation of law - Constitutional and positive - to the common
good of men created by God, in this constitutional republic based on natural rights and the natural law given by God.
I know how it really works and all that is visible is not as it seems,
for a peculiar version of the bait and switch ploy is ever in play
conjoined at the hip to old-fashioned naļveté.
However, I was somewhat, guardedly reassured by candidate Trump's first
string of SC nominees. At the time this was the only known list.
Enter the revised list with second-stringer Neil Gorsuch added. The
first clue that all was not as promised was the high praise many
liberals in the law field heaped upon him. Now there are honest,
fair-minded liberals here and there, but not that many, not today
anyway. Most are hardened ideologues with a no-holds barred
anti-Tradition agenda. If this were not true, we would not be where we
today. Knowledge of this reality is further backed up when we consider
that he was appointed to the Court of Appeals with the approval of
every liberal Senator. I simply did not buy the credentials Trump
asserted. Then there is always the sorry state of Senate rules and the
almighty filibuster to wield as a cudgel a priori
to repel any inchoate conservative fervor which demands little
application given the state of conservatism.
Compromise, it is all bluster, dodge and compromise!
I was not expecting much, just the same old same old, but a small glimmer of hope had not yet
died deep within my Catholic heart, although he purportedly was a
lapsed Catholic, which usually does not bode well for anything but the status quo of
"progressivism", or if not this, at least not much gumption in defense
of the natural law, whether tacit or not. SOP 101. Contrast this trait
with the noble character of the late Judge Bork - he defended the
natural law and was given the gift of True Faith, Deo gratias!
Although I was not exactly impressed with the impressive Neil Gorsuch,
he has sat on the bench with rectitude, with a distinguished record as
measured by the elites and merits respect from the Senators questioning
him. At least that. The
Democrats were rude, condescending and in at least one case, downright
childish, the ever ironic Franckenstein. No one deserves this treatment, the display of which is less
a reflection on the nominee and more on the unsavory tendencies of
these Democrats. Although not surprised by this, again it was SOP 101.
However I had not foreseen how taken Neil Gorsuch would be with himself. The
nominee is supposed to answer questions in re
the law, not blow his own horn repeatedly, citing statistics about his
case record! That is what the Republicans are for. They are to be at
least as prepared as the nominee, the preparation of which ought to
include these "statistics," so as to spare the nominee the spectacle of
proffering his own praise of self. There is always to be expected a
small element of this, given the grain of these proceedings and human
nature, but never anything quite like this! But we'll set this aside for the main event, the Gorsuch "doctrine."
To his credit he was believable when he said he would remain impartial,
independent and held with religious liberty; he insisted that there are no Democrat or Republican judges. Note, not there ought not be, but there are not,
not exactly the same thing. It was as if he has been asleep for a
generation. Judges may claim to be impartial, but there are two
partisan camps, readily apprehended by the common man who is plain
spoken but observant and who is not given to suffer fools
lightly:  Transformation agents - the living document crowd -
who believe the law is what they want it to be as they see the society
at any given time, so that the citizen has no confidence that what he
has placed his faith in and ordered his life around will not be swept
up right from under his feet rendering him and normalcy collateral damage in
the rush to de-legitimize the indispensable moral
law and even common sense. These partisans serve Mammon and their own hubris, not the
foundation of the Constitution itself, the natural law, without which
man descends into chaos, tyranny, and change upon change to the point
of meaninglessness.  Constructionalists who know that the law is
what is intended by its words and the context within the ambit of the
natural law and inherent natural rights, which can never be entirely erased from the heart of man,
although by sheer malicious will he can mitigate its force in law,
always resulting in tragedy in the cost to human souls set adrift from First Things and the common understanding of the
way things are supposed to work if one is to retain one's dignity. The process becomes the raison d'etre,
not merely the means, and it is never enough, once the tinkering
begins. This is a central aspect of human nature, also, especially when
combined with the conceit of raw power without check. Judge Horsuch
indicated in so many words that the court is supreme, not in the sense
of the highest, but above check by the other branches.
In essence, if I properly understand him, absolutism without restraint
other than the instincts of judges by definition. This would be
acceptable if judges had not become policy makers, political agents.
Constructionalists are partisans, too, but not in the pejorative sense, for they are not bent on obstructing what is necessarily true about human nature because it is of Truth, but rather preserving it! They are activists, certainly to be precise, not to destroy western ideals, but to restore to the commonweal what was stolen by judicial fiat.
Judge Gorsuch, who appears sincere, seems unaware that the latest ruling, negating the natural law, Obergefell v. Hodges,
["gay marriage"] which is by definition supreme even over that of the
US Constitution, was done out of sheer partisanship, yea even for
emotion's sake as Justice Kennedy implied, but certainly not based on
the Constitution as revealed by Chief Justice Roberts. No one asked him
if he agreed with Roberts. He simply asserted that for him [Gorsuch] it
was settled law! He said it emphatically by his tone! Yet, here he sat
insisting over and over and over again that precedent was very
important and ought not ever be overturned but in the gravest of
circumstances. This is ironic, for two reasons. There was no direct precedent
for it, yet he insists it is in of itself a precedent that can never be
revisited as it is SETTLED! I say no direct, because the only case leading up to Oberfegell was the tortured much touted Lawrence v. Texas case that overturned that State's anti-sodomy law. It
is one thing to declare that a law is unenforceable, it is quite
another to grant a positive right to sodomy, an unnatural act that
breaks with the natural law itself. Having already sanctioned abortion
as a right in all likelihood had so weakened the reasoning and resolve
of the Court, that it was to be expected, given the trajectory of
willful repudiation of all that fosters human dignity, separating us
from beasts. Oberfegell, after a mere two years, yet he readily
admitted as he ought that Plessey v. Ferguson, of long-standing was rightly overturned in Brown, etc. What does he mean by settled, precisely? We never found out. He cannot comment on Roe, but can on Obergefell when it can readily be foreseen that a challenge will be forthcoming? Hmmm? This makes no sense. If Obergefell is settled!!!, without challenge as yet and a subsequent reaffirmation, what does this say about the possibility to overturn Roe,
reaffirmed time and time again, although the court itself recognized it
was badly decided, but that people had become used to ordering their
lives around it. Which begs the question, what about those lives who
are not recognized under Roe? Shades of Dred Scott, but with a diminished capacity for appeal, under the precedent doctrine of Horsuch.
Salty tears welled up and spilled
down my withered cheeks, while a plaintive elegy could be heard in the
nearby neo-Orwellian mist, the refrain echoing the fading promise, the
promised dream ....
Meanwhile a corollary query: How come a Muslim truck driver whose
conscience under his religion forbade alcohol, was permitted to change
his trucking assignment and another driver take over the alcohol run in
his stead; how come all these sanctuary cities and mayors and other
officials are not fined out of existence for their obstruction of a
just law which they say violates their consciences; and how come
Christian florists and bakers are penalized out of business and a
livelihood for their conscience under their religion when there are
other establishments that can take their place in certain transactions?
At least these Christians are not preventing the law or anyone else for
that matter, they simply do not want to participate in sin themselves.
In other words, why is the Muslim conscience inviolate, the city
mayor's inviolate - no fine for him - but the little Christian with no
rights at all?
According to Horsuch this is wrong, but then says Obergefell is settled law. Yet, his future co-Justice, Sam Alito, says that Obergefell
will be the source of persecution of Christians. No one asked him about
this, of course, just as no one asked him about the role of the natural
law in the grand scheme of things. As for the no comment on Roe, none
was needed, for Judge Horsuch said that Justice Black, the crisp black
heart of penumbras and cold blooded murder of innocent babies, babies
that even the drug companies recognize as babies just as little
children do, was one of his favorite Justices to admire. Forget shades
of Sandra Day O'Connor from the hands of a Republican, if Black will do.
Salty tears welled up and
spilled down my withered cheeks, while a plaintive elegy could be heard
in the nearby neo-Orwellian mist, the refrain echoing the fading
promise, the promised dream .... fading almost as fast as the natural law itself ....