Judiciary Must Not Legislate: Pass An Abortion Law In The USA. Roe v Wade Was A Masquerade

It is not for the judiciary to legislate. The judiciary is in charge of implementing and adjudicating the laws. Laws are passed by the legislature (supposedly representing “We The People”).

In the US, the Supreme Court stepped in, and nine senior men with a mostly Caucasian appearance, 50 years ago, passed a judicial opinion masquerading as a sort of law enabling some sorts of abortions. 

This is not how  representative democracy with separation of three powers is supposed to work. This violation of basic constitutionality set a dangerous precedent where the Supreme Court displaced Congress to write sort-of-laws. 

Since then, one can see the mood of replacing laws voted, or not voted, by legislators being created, or overruled by the judiciary in other domains, for example guns… With disastrous effect; it should not be SCOTUS which decides what sot of guns people can carry. 

Far from promoting democracy, legislating through diktats of the judiciary is not just unconstitutional, it’s demeaning, infuriating, it makes people turn away from the law and it creates a general fascist mood, as We The People gets in the habits to have a committee of nine decided what is legal, or not… Instead of having more than 500 representatives decide. 

Worldwide, more than 50 representative democracies have passed laws on abortions, using a standard vote in the Parliament. Those laws are remarkably similar. One could call them collectively, the abortion law: abortion at will, no question asked until 12 to 14 weeks, after that, medical opinions, and restrictions, steer abortions (including by considering the psychological state of the mother). The idea being that, once the fetus is viable, it’s not the private property of the carrier of said yet-to-be-born baby, 

The US must do the same on a national level… And there will be no problem. In these 50+ democracies which passed the abortion law, abortion is not controversial (anymore). 

One of the reasons that the Judiciary must not legislate is that it is very bad at it (having others things to do, and other inclinations).

In its abortion decision, of 1972, SCOTUS confused unanimously… life and privacy. Certainly the privacy of someone stops where the life of someone else starts.  Just as the motion of one’s fist must stop where someone else’s nose starts…

Romans used to have the right to kill their child, no question asked. Now, thoughtful laws prevent them to do so. That’s progress. All culturally advanced countries have an abortion law (details do not vary much among US peers). Why can’t the US pass one? Too busy being tribal?

Patrice Ayme

Supreme Court Of US (“SCOTUS”) in 1972. Those 9 mostly white oldish men decided that abortion was a right to privacy, and exceptionally stupid decision… Which led millions into error regrading human life: somebody’s life is not somebody’s else, “right to privacy”.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the six SCOTUS judges of the majority, said that a Mississipi law was OK, and that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that affirmed Roe’s core holding, should be overruled.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Alito wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Frightening McCarthyism Style Senate Hearings For US Supreme Court

Abominable sexism is all over the planet. It needs to be fought. The sword of mental progress should decapitate sexism. But a sword works best when it has not been shattered, by striking too hard an object of no value, gaining naught. This is the problem caving to the Kavanaugh hearing hysteria. I am for the hearing, not the hysteria. [Thereafter Kavanaugh will be K and his accuser F.]

This is a philosophy site. Philosophy means loving wisdom, which can’t be accomplished without hating stupidity. And thus, in particular, hating the stupid (Sade, Hugo, Nietzsche did that well). Thus, creating philosophy has rarely been perceived as nice by most contemporaries. New philosophy exists by finding ways to contradict yesterday’s wisdom, uncovering stupidity, thus the stupid.

Individuals with over-wrinkled (F), marked, or reddish faces (from alcohol blown capillaries, watch K’s ruddy face and pink cheeks) and, or neurologically frazzled behavior (both K and F) show evidence of alcohol damage to various tissues. Thus, ex-old drunkards testify in front of the US Senate. Yes, because they both admitted to heavy  drinking of alcohol… while underage, and thereafter. K has made many statements about the festive state alcohol put him into, during many public events he was invited to in the past. Accuser Ford? The woman was a drunkard at the time… and what was a 15-year-old girl doing at a drunkard’s’ party  with older boys? If not for enjoying inebriety, trouble and illegal behavior?

A few points to which the USA seems most immune to: 

1. crimes, except against humanity, shouldn’t be prosecuted 36 years later: no serious defense can be set-up.  
2. Even more importantly, both K and F were children at the time… Ah, but the professional prosecutor who interrogated K said that even “horseplay” (what children do) could be sexual in nature, thus… a crime!  

A grotesque standard was established by the prosecutor: “sexual behavior” was defined as “genitals touching” (whatever “genitals” are) voluntarily or not, through clothing or not (this probably makes jammed subway people and football/rugby players sexual behaviorists engaging in “unwanted sexual behavior”). Puritanism gone mad, and vicious: because people are really sent to prison in the USA for behaving, at some point, for a second or two as if they were in Tokyo or Paris subways… This is deep inside the violence, judicial or social of the US: prosecuting what are basically non-crimes, enables the prosecution and law enforcement, and legislating bodies to ignore real crimes, as if it was not their fault. They just ran out of attention, cognition, reflection, time and energy you see. Instead they all worry about the hand of a child, perhaps, on the mouth of a drunk 15-year-old girl… 36 years ago.

An entirely grotesque process then. Kavanaugh the judge was the object of 6 FBI inquiries prior, before his various nominations as a judge. The accuser suddenly remembers in 2012, under “therapy” what happened in 1982. I have been assaulted much more severely, more than once… A tendency is to forget assaults, just to get inner peace, not to suddenly remember them. But never talking about them after they happened? No way. One is forced to share trauma.

***

Before gaining altitude, in a follow-up essay on sexism, to come later, let me reiterate the obvious:

Dreaming is best done above the clouds, for those who search ultimate wisdom, freedom

I am no philosophical friend of Kavanaugh, but mostly his enemy. In particular, I don’t like show-off Christians (they are liars: who can believe all the Jesus fable? Lunatics? Pedophiles?)

Nor do I like drunkards: the good judge was always one of them. I believe drunkards tend to forget, make up stories to fill-in the missing memories (I believe Ford was sexually assaulted in one of her drinking bouts, and that’s why she drank; whether K jumped on top of her, horseplaying, I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter: these were kids, but they shouldn’t have been drinking alcohol). Even more, drunkards can’t live with themselves. Socrates was a drunkard, and proud of it. But how can one be proud of “know thyself” and yet proud of messing up with one’s ability to gather knowledge?

However, this is a witch hunt: the alleged assault, had it happen, barely qualifies as such. It qualifies as horseplay on steroids. And the fact is, the accuser didn’t go to the police (she had probably committed crimes herself, hence her lack of alacrity to testify then or now).

Real assault, something I am all too familiar with, is something quite different. One doesn’t wait 30 years to “remember” it, as Ford claimed. One wants to share it with others, share the sense of injustice. I had a few near-death experiences (some from assault), and I am not mute about it, never was. It’s actually normal to mention violent occurrences… as long as one has nothing to do with the situation which led to the aggression.

Next: why sexism should be eradicated. Ah, last but not least: the prosecutor, a woman, was morbidly obese. That’s a form of violence, even lethal violence. Some will say:’Oh, but she kills only herself.’ No, she enjoys millions of women to view putting a hand on a mouth, or “genitals” through clothing somehow colliding with some other organics under clothing, as a most major crime. But dying of obesity pretty soon? That’s the American way.

I see a violence in obesity, as I do in prosecuting hand on a mouth 36 years later, or judging children as adults, 36 years later, but not of the parents who failed to provide supervision… 

Another point: while I am as anti-sexist as they come, I can see perfectly that sexism is a two-way road. Clearly, in the society at large, women are not on top proportionally to their number and, or, education. However, that should be no excuse for the self-described (pseudo) “resistance” to mimic McCarthyism, just worse. Some may scoff that, surely, this is not as bad as McCarthyism.

But consider this: the original population of Western Europe and North America is not reproducing, it’s actually dying, at a very fast pace by historical  standards. It’s not as fast as the collapse of the Aztecs (which went from say 16 million in 1520 CE to one million in 1600 CE). However, the Aztecs, like other American Native got crushed by Eurasian disease their genetics was weak to resist: it was a special situation. Now EU authorities say they need to welcome (mostly Muslim) immigrants, because European youth is collapsing.

Maybe, tighten the seat belts, please, maybe what is collapsing quite a bit too much, is good old machismo (I will not Tweet this, lest I lose plenty of followers…) If men of a particular ethnicity are going to be terrified of all and any “horseplay” with women, that particular ethnicity won’t just stoop to the level of fanatical Islam in its relationship between men and women. It will also implode. White Euro-American populations will also be replaced by Fundamentalist Muslims, because the latter reproduce aplenty… The reason is obvious: Fundamentalist Muslim males are not living in terror of approaching women when, and where, and how it really matters as far as survival of the “race” is concerned. Differently from all these disheveled white men on the run…

And the worst? All this is fake. The anti-machismo movement is supposedly to help women… But, in the end, it just helps those who have it all…  Those old white men it pretends to excoriates… By removing the fangs which could tear them up, and only fangs will do.

The point of this essay is this: whenone is civilized, it’s important to be civilized in-depth. In depth, Kavenaugh represents much that I condemn, and despise. The sort of aggression Ford claims she was victim of, I also despise and condemn, however much she assiduously prepared herself to be a victim of, with systematic drinking. However, one can’t judge civilization in-depth alone, especially regarding individuals. After all what is going down in-depth is hard to ascertain. Whereas superficial forms are easy to observe: acceptable form, appearance, politeness have also to be extended too, it’s a matter of civilization one can see and judge easily. When Feinstein and other “Dems” (Demons?) sat on the accusation against Kavanaugh, keeping it secret, until they could spring it at the last moment, they were sabotaging the (pseudo) democratic process of Supreme Court generalissimo selection.

Applying full adult justice on children, decades later, only an unacceptable civilization would do this. As Kavanaugh himself said:’What goes around, comes around.” In their fight to death against Trump, the “democratic” powers that be play a dangerous game: they create a precedent of using any sort of propaganda, however improbable (Trump as Russian agent… when Trump is on tape as having exactly the same opinions when the USSR already existed and Trump was fighting… Ronald Reagan’s plutocratic globalization).

One should not forget (should one know it) that the Roman Revolution which ended up with Augustus as dictator, started with legitimate gripes of the soldiers of Octavian army. Centurions went ahead, one bared and brandished his sword at the… Senate, the Roman Senate, and declared that if the Senate didn’t take the right decisions, his sword would. We are not yet there, and Trump is craftily surrounded by generals. But this is the nuclear age, and history goes fast….

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note: The pseudo-left has also issued scathing comments about the Senate being full of old white men (as the tips of all hierarchies)… First that’s grotesquely ageist, a form of discrimination just as bad as discrimination against children, as the old can’t defend themselves well. Worse: there is a reason it’s called a “Senate”. Like in “Senior”. It’s about older people giving advice, because they have little personally to gain in giving poisonous counsel. Age discrimination is one of the worst thing: it is not just unfair, it deprives humanity of wisdom. Learn.

Supreme Joke

The USA is endowed with a “Supreme Court”, which is mentioned in a few words in the initial document establishing the Constitution of the USA. It was not meant as a Constitutional Court, but came to be progressively used that way. Thus a few individuals named for life have enormous powers. Such a system is intrinsically diabolical (thus friendly to the Lord of Hell, Pluto).

Power corrupts, and supreme power, especially in matter of justice, corrupts supremely.

Enormous powers for the few in matter of justice is not democracy. In the Athenian Direct Democracy, some juries had to have a quorum of 6,001 (yes, more than six thousands, depending upon the gravity of the matter). The Athenian system, established more than 2,500 years ago, was not perfect. Ours is clearly anti-democratic.

Scaglia was a judge named for life at the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Reagan’s education was sport announcer, and then actor. Reagan avoided combat in World War Two, but knew how to leverage McCarthyism. That made him a perfect politician to serve the satanic ones. Reagan became governor of California, where he imposed a tuition on the PUBLIC university of California.

Imagine the enormity: a public service became the exclusive province of the rich. That was just the beginning.

No Plutocracy Is Strong Enough

After this important symbolic victory, plutocracy flew from success to success. Now tuition at the so-called “public” University of California can be as much as a third of median family income in the USA (the income before taxes, social security, health insurance, etc.). So this distinguished plutophile, Reagan, was fully qualified to name a king of justice to rule over the USA.

That king was Scaglia. Scaglia was the leader of the “conservatives” at the Supreme Court Of The US (SCOTUS). He flew from success to success.

In 2000, SCOTUS stopped the recount of the vote for the presidential election of the USA. The difference of votes between Bush and Gore was around 300 (three hundred) votes, in favor of Bush. Gore had asked for a recount, and Florida law, when it was that close, required a recount. (Had Florida gone to the Gore, Gore, who was only five electoral votes behind Bush, would have been 45 votes ahead, and be elected President. Moreover Gore had won the popular vote.)

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[57]

At an election night party, “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[59] However, both Justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush’s first term, until Rehnquist’s death in 2005 and O’Connor’s retirement in 2006. According to Steven Foster of the Manchester Grammar School:

“On the eve of the election Sandra Day O’Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas’s wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia’s son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.”[60]

In 2013, retired “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, suggested that perhaps the Court should have declined to hear the case, which “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation”.

The interpretation of the details can be argued. The basic point, though, is that enormous influence is exerted by putting so much power in a few hands, and it extends to their entourage. For example the Chelsea Clinton of the Clinton Foundation is in charge of fighting pollution in California (yes, more than weird; more exactly she finances, through the Clinton Foundation a private company which sells devices which detect pollution; why should it concern Europeans? Because some day it’s that company, ultimately financed by taxpayers in the USA, and then scaled up, which will be in charge of measuring pollution in Europe).

Gore dropped his lawsuit, and was rewarded by a gigantic fortune and the Nobel Prize (sounds familiar?)

Is the USA a democracy? No. Officially, Gore beat Bush by more than half a million votes:

Winner:   50,456,062 votes

Main Opponent:   50,996,582

Then, of course, there was the “Citizen United” decision. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case approving the unbounded, uncontrolled spending in political campaigns by (PLUTOCRATIC) organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (such as all and any “charity” financed by plutocrats, or, as they love to call themselves, “philanthropists”) . Then SCOTUS extended that to for-profit corporations, and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has “re-shaped the political landscape” of the United States.

The USA, formerly a republic, went, with the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United”, from de facto plutocracy to formal constitutional plutocracy.

Even Jeb Bush, one of its main beneficiaries, wants to get rid of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. He said: “this is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate”.

Why do nine judge 320 millions? Some will say: expertise. However, the SCOTUS was not created as Constitutional Court. Other countries have specialized Constitutional Courts. In a country such as France, there are actually four distincts “supreme courts”: the Cour de Cassation, the Conseil d’Etat, the Constitutional Court, and the European Supreme Court. It all depends what the conflict is about. None of these judges are there forever, and they can be, and have been, impeached.

In any case, now plutocracy is the Constitutional Law of the land in the USA.

So it is, when too much power goes in too few hands.

And it has an impact, worldwide as the USA, as the world’s most powerful nation, anchor of nearly all the world’s major institutions, is the conductor of the world’s symphony, the One Way Descent to Hell.

So RIP Scaglia, we are left to enjoy the hell you organized for us, serving your masters well.

We write, and some will read. But will it reach? Did Montaigne become Montaigne because he was a close friend of the king and many other plutocrats paid attention to what he wrote? Probably. Some may have written better, and disappeared in a night, which they never left.

Still we go, as humanity always did.

Thought without passion is like motion, without motivation. A parody of humanity. A demolition, of incarnation. Existence, without sentience.

The supreme joke is on those Very Serious People who never understood that their supreme greed, is not just pathetic, but actually comical.

Not so, will the Supremes object: our refined pleasure is the power we have on you, and how much we can make you suffer: “Citizens United”. Sure, I agree. Sadism rules, and not just in black robes, my point entirely. Power enables cruelty to become supreme, and forget, in the thrall of passion, the frailty of the human condition. This is true, but it’s not just.

Patrice Ayme’