Why I Support Sotomayor For The Supreme Court

Some of you might be wondering whether I've taken leave of my senses, perhaps from my having swallowed too much Robitussin to combat my cold. But let me assure you that I declare with full lucidity that I support Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

Why? Because Sotomayor, like Obama, is the culmination and apotheosis of every degenerative trend in American civic life over the past century. Both are "public servants" who, despite swearing to uphold the Constitution, have declared open war on it and on every noble principle that went into America's founding. If there is any hope of salvation for America, it is through delegitimizing the political apparatus (aka, "the Tumor") that has usurped and displaced the federal government our Founders bequeathed us. While most politicians pay lip service to our highest ideals while eviscerating them on a daily basis -- thereby deceiving a large number of Americans into concluding that our foundations remain strong -- people such as Sotomayor and Obama do not pussyfoot or mince words about their illicit objectives. If Sotomayor makes it onto the bench, and if Obama appoints similar harpies or trolls to join her, more people will shake the delusion that the political apparatus can be "reformed" from within.

In short, I support Sotomayor because the problem is the solution. The entity calling itself the federal government must become so problematic that a tipping point is reached and a critical mass of Americans in any given jurisdiction refuses to tolerate it any more.

Sometimes It's Good To Be Wrong

I recently returned from my first cruise ever, and although it gave me a much-needed rest and a wonderful tan, it also gave me a nasty cold and a cough that will not quit. On balance, though, I highly recommend the experience.

While recuperating I couldn't help but notice that the California Supreme Court has honored the decision by California's voters not to recognize gay unions as "marriages." I previously ventured that the Court would go the other way, for however self-evident it is that a majority need not bestow benefits on a minority, modern tribunals take it upon themselves to veto the people's will whenever it deviates from the politically correct line. (Whether the people's will deviates from the law is a far distant concern, if any.) What makes this especially rewarding is that the Court predicated its decision solely on the California Constitution, which means that there is no (legitmate) basis for appealing this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. And guess what -- we have Sandra Day O'Connor to thank for it. Yes, indeed, the Justice emeritus who never met a baby she didn't want to split held that a ruling by a state supreme court is non-reviewable if supported by adequate and independent state-law grounds.

Oh, it doesn't get much better than this! I happily admit that I was wrong, wrong, wrong when predicting that the California Supreme Court would strike down Proposition 8. Time for a beer.

(P.S. - Be on the lookout for some cockeyed challenge to Proposition 8 in a federal district court, likely under the aegis of enjoining enforcement by state officials. That's a tough sell because nobody is being threatened with fines or imprisonment, so there is no real basis for an injunction, but stranger things have happened.)

Going On A Cruise

I'm off for the next week, as my lovely wife and I are going on a cruise with our friends to enjoy the splendor of the Caribbean. As entertaining as it is to witness the demolition of the American experiment, sometimes it's good to take a break and reconnect with the human beings who fill our lives.

I will leave you with one question to ponder: where does Barack Obama derive the authority to impose fuel-economy standards on automobiles? The Constitution gives him no such authority, which he should know because he was once a "constitutional law professor." Only one answer remains, as far as I can tell. Obama derives the authority from YOU, because when the rule of law has shattered, only public opinion remains to support or obstruct the ruler's will. As Obama continues pronouncing unlawful edicts of this sort, and as your freedom and prosperity continue to vanish, try to re-think whether you should ascribe any legitimacy whatsoever to the goings-on in Washington, D.C.. If you're unwilling or unable to reject those goings-on as the criminal activities they truly are, then you have only yourself to blame for your woes. Also, be on the lookout for new regulations against excessive exhaling, since the carbon dioxide emitted by 300 million lungs "pollutes" the atmosphere to an intolerable extent.

Too Rich

Wouldn't you know it, George Will is frightful for the rule of law under the Mobutu (sorry, Obama) administration. This is quite a turnaround from two years ago, when Will chastised Ron Paul as a wet-behind-the-ears naif for insisting on constitutional compliance. To paraphrase Apocalypse Now, accusing a modern president of breaking the law is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. Obama's a little faster than the rest of the pack, but they're all far in excess of the posted limits.

Rapid Reflections

I continuously hear pundits and talking heads reject any suggestion of free-market recovery with this shrill refrain: "But we can't just do nothing!" Notice the linguistic sleight of hand -- they are equating "we" with the feds. Apparently, if the feds aren't busy coercing us, then we are all just sitting on our hands doing nothing. The fact that they get away with this reveals our own abject lack of faith in ourselves as independent human beings. It also illuminates once again the widespread notion that there is no distinction between the political sector and civil society, a notion that Mussolini would gladly have endorsed. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

Calvin Coolidge was probably America's last president who actually governed within the Constitution's limitations. Considering that he left office in 1929, you can appreciate my lack of enthusiasm for mainstream politics. As the late, great George Carlin once observed, the reason it's called a "mainstream" is that it's so shallow.

Abraham Lincoln's sin was forgetting that the Union is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Because Lincoln forgot this (or willingly rejected it), he destroyed many of the true ends that the Union was designed to preserve. If the purpose of a fortress is to keep barbarians out, should I feel overjoyed that the fortress remains standing even after the barbarians have occupied it?

Every crackpot, interventionist, inflationary, and authoritarian scheme by the Obama administration might very well be constitutional, if Obama were a governor rather than a president. After all, governors possess far more (legal) authority within their jurisdictions than presidents do. Obama's lunacy would also be geographically contained, allowing Americans to flee to neighboring States and thereby deprive the Obama administration of revenues (which, in turn, would rapidly force Obama to re-think his thoroughly bankrupt ideology). But Obama holds a geographic monopoly and exercises illicit power, so he is an albatross hanging around our necks and pulling us under the waves. One saving grace is the division of sovereignty on the world stage, which will eventually flush out the lunacy (faster if countries compete, but more slowly if they try to coordinate their coercion).

Oklahoma Legislature Leads The Way

The Oklahoma legislature is poised to override its spineless governor and declare that the Tenth Amendment is just as mandatory as the rest of the Constitution -- States and their citizens retain all powers except for the sparse few delegated to the federal government (and except for the sparse few prohibited to the States, e.g., no ex post facto laws, no bills of attainder, no impairment of contracts).

I noted Oklahoma's chutzpah almost an entire year ago, and I am overjoyed that they are seeing this thing through. Not only does this remind everyone that the Constitution actually means what it says, but it also paves the way for real economic stimulus by repudiating the massive federal taxing and spending devoted to unconstitutional enterprises. But for that unlawful waste, all of us would be worlds wealthier and happier than we find ourselves today.

Last, this is a point of pride for me because I went out on a treacherous limb three years ago when I publicly advocated re-assertion of State sovereignty. Hardly anyone took such talk seriously back then, but my, how the times have changed! It remains to be seen whether full-blown secession will ever occur, but at least Americans are starting to think outside the box.

Obama Has Put Me In A Good Mood

As the nominal federal government falls under the control of Barack Obama and his minions, I find myself positively giddy. For example, each of the following developments has made me happier than I've felt for quite a long time:

• Obama fires the executive of a private business;

• Obama threatens to destroy the reputations of those who refuse to help implement his plan for the auto industry;

• Obama proposes to dig America several trillion dollars deeper into debt as a means to escape debt;

• Obama announces he will complete the Supreme Court's degradation into a political body, as he will select a nominee who decides cases based on the identity of the parties rather than on the principle that justice must remain blind;

• Arlen Specter jumps ship in order to hand Obama a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate;

• Republicans are told they must become more like Democrats if they wish to survive;
  

• The decaying wall between the private sector and the public sector comes crashing down; and

• The press corps dutifully proclaims that for all these reasons and more, Obama is a great leader.
  

Why do these events excite me so? Because it is more impossible than ever for liberty lovers to pretend that the American political system is sane, let alone worth participating in. For far too long a sizeable portion of Americans have thrown in their lot with Republicans on the mistaken belief that their small-government rhetoric was authentic. No such ploys will work anymore, as even that hollow rhetoric is now scorned as "extremist" by Democrats and Republicans alike. The salvation of America lies not in the battle between Democrats and Republicans -- it lies in the battle between the federal government and America's founding principles. You cannot be with one and the other at the same time, a sobering reality that more Americans are waking up to after a long period of economic intoxication.

EDIT:

As proof positive of the futility of preserving liberty through the existing political system, catch these comments by Jeb Bush, the wretched face of the modern Republican party as it scrambles to market itself to the lowest common denominator. He exhorts Republicans to jettison any fondness for limited government, since that doesn't sell anymore, and since losing power is a far worse fate than losing America's founding principles. Even though it was always obvious, at least now it's official -- according to both the Democrats and the Republicans, no liberty lovers need apply.