The EVIL That Parades Around In Black Robes – SCOTUS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday wrote a dissenting opinion ripping apart the court’s tendency to bend over backwards to accommodate abortions.  Here are eight of the sickest burns in that opinion.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Justice Clarence Thomas yesterday wrote a dissenting opinion ripping apart the court’s tendency to bend over backwards to accommodate abortions.  Here are eight of the sickest burns in that opinion.  This is from TheFederalist.com.  I just picked this up right before we came on the program today and I’d like to share that with you.

[reading]

1 – The court’s interpretation of “undue burden” is confusing as hell.

“Today’s opinion does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the Court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”

[end reading]

Mike:  I have spent the last three days on this subject on number two.  That is this: How is it that a court must consider legal matters, matters of law, matters of legality, matter of jurisprudence, things that have to do with legislative acts, how is it that a court can make determinations and can pronounce those determinations with authority when they have to do with biology or biological functions?  Can the Supreme Court say it’s an undue burden for me to have to zip my fly up and not have my you-know-what hanging out while I’m walking down the street?  [mocking] “Men have been burdened forever.”  What about women and their you-know-what?  Can they just hang them out walking down the street?  [mocking] “It’s an undue burden.  That brassiere is an undue burden.  That shirt is an undue burden.”  This is so preposterous.

[reading]

2 – Judges aren’t medical experts – even if they try to appoint themselves as such.

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

“Moreover, by second-guessing medical evidence and making its own assessments of ‘quality of care’ issues. . . the majority reappoints this Court as ‘the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.’ . . .”

[end reading]

Mike:  Again, why – you use the term United States.  Maybe the states shouldn’t be united anymore.  Maybe because this ruling is now going to be force fed to the citizens of Louisiana, is going to be force fed to the citizens of Oklahoma, is going to be force fed to the citizens of Mississippi and Alabama and Arkansas and Tennessee and Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia – although northern Virginians won’t care.  West Virginia will care, most of Pennsylvania will care, all of Upstate New York will care.  Most of Indiana will care.  Most of southern Illinois will care.  Most of Iowa, unless you’re in one of those bribery belts where the ethanol is produced, you may still have some ethics.  You may still have some grace left in Iowa.  You’ll care.

Why should anyone obey Justice Anthony Kennedy?  This was never supposed to work like this.  Why aren’t other people saying what me and Kreslins are saying?  The time for civil disobedience is now.  There are wars being fought right now allegedly to prevent the loss of life.  We know inside a Planned Parenthood clinic today there’s going to be loss of life.  Are there any armies that are being brought to bear to prevent it?  Are there American citizens that will escape their own cowardice for just a moment to proclaim and demand, for example in Texas, that the Texas governor, that the Texas attorney general, maybe the governor ought to call the assembly into a special session right now.  Get busy.  Get jiggy wit’ it.  Do something about this.  Don’t take this stuff lying down.  Souls are also at stake.  The fact that the State is participating in this means that the State is participating in mortal sin.  We erect governments for the exact opposite purpose, to prevent mortal sins.  It can’t be any more screwed up or opposite than we have currently made it.

Yet, folks, where is the pushback?  I’m telling you, when we talk about these things and we lament that we don’t see the pushback and we don’t see the civil disobedience and we don’t see people counseling these things, we ought to instinctively know at that moment that the answer to most of these problems is in a return to subsidiarity.  You’re just going to have to take it among yourself and do it yourself.  You and I, families and parishes, are just going to have to do it.  If they come for us, so be it, they come for us.  Continuing with Clarence Thomas:

[reading]

“. . . And the majority seriously burdens States, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what ‘commonsense inferences’ of an undue burden this Court will identify next.”

[end reading]

Mike:  There’s no end to it.  Once you go subjective, once you have taken the course of error, there is no end to it.  What does error produce?  Error.  It can never produce truth.  There is a saying or a principle in Aristotelian, Thomistic, or philosophia perennis.  You can illustrate this with what’s called a Tree of Porphyry, named for some Greek guy named Porphyrus, I think.  The Tree of Porphyry basically says that once you’ve arrived at truth, once you begin your argument on truth, you can get to other truths.  When you base your argument upon something that’s particular, and then when it’s particular and it’s negative, and in this case when it’s particular and negative and erroneous, the only thing that it can produce is more particular errors.  That’s exactly what it’s going to produce.

Folks, I’m not a genius.  I’m not even very smart.  I just read and memorize a lot of things.  Somehow when I hear the truth I go: Hmm, yeah, that sounds true.  I’m telling you the way people used to think, back before the Enlightenment.  They would hear something like this and they would instinctively know: Wait a minute, you want to kill how many babies by doing what?  A court just ruled that what ought to happen?

[reading]

3 – Arbitrary standards mess up constitutional law. [Mike: The guy that wrote this for The Federalist doesn’t understand. There is no constitutional law. The Constitution is dead. It’s gone. It took the last train to Clarksville with Mike Nesbitt and Micky Dolenz.]

“As the Court applies whatever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat.

[end reading]

Mike:  Thomas is a very good Latinist, by the way.  He uses lots of legal Latin words in all of his writings.  Judicial fiat means judicial will.  In other words, there’s nothing to restrain the will of judges.  As a matter of fact, Mark Kreslins and I have been tagged in this story here today, “Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It.”  I have news for you.  Judges have never studied the Constitution and it’s been outdated since Lincoln.  Newsflash!

[reading]

4 – The court just makes stuff up to get what it wants.

“The illegitimacy of using ‘made-up tests’ to ‘displace longstanding national traditions as the primary determinant of what the Constitution means’ has long been apparent. . . The Constitution does not prescribe tiers of scrutiny. The three basic tiers—‘rational basis,’ intermediate, and strict scrutiny—‘are no more scientific than their names suggest, and a further element of randomness is added by the fact that it is largely up to us which test will be applied in each case.’ . . . [Mike: In other words, they just make it up as they go along.] But the problem now goes beyond that. If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result.”

5 – Muzzling free speech? No problem. Defining marriage? Good luck.

“Likewise, it is now easier for the government to restrict judicial candidates’ campaign speech than for the Government to define marriage—even though the former is subject to strict scrutiny and the latter was supposedly subject to some form of rational-basis review.”

[end reading]

 Mike:  There’s more of these.  Finally Thomas concludes, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent on Texas v. Women’s Wellness.  If there’s ever been an oxymoron, that’s it.

[reading]

“Today’s decision will prompt some to claim victory, just as it will stiffen opponents’ will to object. But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is a ‘regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where “law,” properly speaking, has any further applications.’”

[/private]

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but if you paid attention to the recent Supreme Court decisions, for example, the last couple ones that were written by Antonin Scalia before he died, and now this one by Clarence Thomas, and Thomas concurred in the ones written by Scalia, there is, in these dissenting opinions there is a sense of dread.  There is communicated a sense of resolve that America is at an end, that any decency, as I said earlier grace, that might have existed out there has been vanquished.  Courts can’t find it.  They are no longer seeking it.  Now they are actively seeking to abolish it, to obliterate it, to get rid of it.  It’s quite a state of affairs that we currently exist under.

Now, there are a couple things we can do.  We can complain mightily about it and continue to do exactly what we have been doing, and how’s that working out for the carcasses that are piling up on the Planned Parenthood-sized skyscraper of aborted babies?  How’s that working out?  Not very well.  Here I am – someone might want to ask the question, [mocking] “Mitter Church, what are you doing about it?  Mitter Church, what are we gonna do?  What are you doing?”  Well, I’m encouraging people that they should make plans to secede, to withdraw their consent from this government, that we should be petitioning our local law enforcement, should be rallying our neighbors to the fact that if they try and impose a law like this, if they try and force feed our communities, these types of bans on reasonable restrictions and regulations, until we can get to an outright ban on the ghastly procedure of aborting babies, that if they try to do it we’re going to tell them no.  Then what are they going to do?

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

What’s going to be the answer when – when Texas – what if Texas were to say today: We reviewed your decision, Justice Kennedy, and we don’t like it.  We’re not going to enforce it.  We know you think you have the authority, but we’re just going to kind of ignore it.  What if Texas decided to ignore it?  It would be commensurate upon the attorney general of the state and upon the lower courts to try and enforce it.  Now, how are they going to enforce it against apostates to it that say: No, we deny that it has any authority whatsoever.  We are apostates to the State.  We’re not going to enforce it.  What are they going to do?  Are they going to send the 82^nd Airborne in there?  Is the Texas National Guard going to be called out to start arresting people that won’t comply?  Why does no one even think about this?

Back in the day when homosexuals, when homosexuality was not acceptable in public, and homosexuals were told: You’re not allowed to that in public.  Hey, you shouldn’t be doing this.  Even adulterers and prostitutes, you’re not supposed to do that in public.  They practiced civil disobedience of sorts, but they were in the wrong.  You see, folks, that brings us to the next part of our discussion here.  Evil seems to find a way because evil is convenient.  Evil seems to have great success because sinning is easy.  Evil seems to rule the day because that’s what the prince of this world does; he rules the day.  We think of him as the prince of darkness, but he’s not the prince of darkness, not as we perceive it.  Your neighbor and my neighbor perceives his charms, his pomps, and his works as good things, as fun things, as Olive Garden and Regal Cinema, as downloading porn tonight when you get home late and your wife’s asleep.

End Mike Church Show Transcript