The Law Is an AssBy Patrick N. Theros - July 12, 2022
I
make no pretense to expertise on constitutional law. I have, however,
seen a great deal of human misery during a long career in the Foreign
Service. My experience tells me that the six reactionary* justices who
just overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to an abortion,
despite five decades of precedent, and New York’s laws regulating
gun-carry, unchallenged since their enactment in 1913, have unleashed a
tidal wave of human misery. The two decisions will condemn thousands to
die whether shot down on the streets or bleeding out in dark alleys
after a botched abortion. Tens of thousands more will bear the scars of
those two decisions for the rest of their lives.
The justices
made their decisions based on their apparent conviction that God endowed
them with superhuman powers that enable them to read the innermost
thoughts of the men who drafted the US Constitution. Never mind that
those men died more than 200 years ago. Or perhaps, the justices believe
that their direct line to the Creator endowed them with the wisdom to
impose His Divine Law (or their own particular version of God’s Law) on
the United States.
No matter, six (unelected) justices have
decided, and no further route of appeal exists. Now the burden falls on
the politicians who govern the states. Banning abortion requires them to
argue that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which states
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” applies only to the Congress.
Some State governments seem to believe they have the authority denied to
Congress to impose religious doctrine espoused by some Christian sects
on the large majority of Americans who do not accept those doctrines.
Has anyone heard a reactionary politician make an argument for banning
abortion that does not rest on sectarian religious doctrine? One can
also ask how does imposing the dogma of a specific religious sect on
people who do not share those religious beliefs not violate the
Establishment Clause? God, apparently, has also enlightened the six
judges to believe that their superior wisdom overrides that of that same
Roman Catholic Church whose teachings all six claim to follow; they
support capital punishment when the Pope does not. They probably reason
that Pope Francis is only the Vicar of God while they are the Voice of
God.
Reactionary American politicians’ hypocrisy boggles the
mind; when was the last time a God-fearing politician demanded the Pope
refuse communion to a Catholic politician who supports capital
punishment? God apparently also enlightened Texas Attorney General Ken
Paxton who announced that the slaughter of children at Uvalde was part
of “God’s Plan.” In fairness to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, he has not
ventured into theology; he simply stated that the mass slaughter of
innocent children is the price of our freedom to carry assault rifles
anywhere we want. We should ask Messrs. Paxton, Cruz and the six
justices to explain to two-year old Aiden McCarthy why the murder of his
parents in Highland Park, a Chicago suburb, fulfilled God’s Plan or
helped preserve liberty.
These same politicians also commit the
sin of Blasphemy; they put themselves in the place of God and have the
power to decide which sin to ban. Nothing in 2 Corinthians 5:10 – “For
we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done,
whether good or bad” indicates that Attorney General Paxton will stand
in for Christ on Judgment Day. As an Orthodox Christian I have been
taught that I must answer personally to God, in the person of Christ,
for my sins, not to politicians. Muslims, Jews, Anglicans, and a large
number of people of other faiths – to mention only a few – share that
belief.
One of the six reactionary justices, Clarence Thomas,
also argued that this decision should be extended to revoke
constitutional protections for other sinners, which judging by his
previous arguments and voting record, includes homosexuals and the
descendants of runaway slaves. The six judges seem to envision the
conversion of the United States into a theocracy, akin to that in Iran,
with the Supreme Court playing the role of the Ayatollahs. After all,
both groups wear robes.
For those wondering about the title of
this article. Charles Dickens, a 19th century English novelist,
popularized it in his novel Oliver Twist, 1838. His character Mr.
Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that
"...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction" Mr.
Bumble replies "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass - an idiot".
'The law is an ass' first appears in Revenge for Honour, a 1654 play
published by the English dramatist George Chapman, who argues about
punishing a man for a duel over a love affair. The sobriquet applies to
the justices as well.
Those who object to describing the
six justices as “reactionary” should look up the term. “Reactionary”
describes politicians who wish to turn back the clock to a mythical
past, usually one of their own imaginings rather than real history. The
late Osama bin Laden expounded at length on such interpretations. In
point of fact, Originalist legal reasoning, e.g., original text
overrides subsequent interpretations, as expounded by the Federalist
Society is identical to Muslim sharia law. Do not confuse
‘reactionaries’, i.e., the current GOP, with “Conservatives.”