A Confusion of Tongues at the Supreme Court

Tower of “Babble”

Words are like leaves, and where they most abound,

Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found.”—Alexander Pope

If anyone wants to read the transcripts of oral argument in the “gay marriage” cases, they may be found @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/27/gay-marriage-and-the-supreme-court-doma-oral-arguments-full-audio/ (Wednesday) and http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/supreme-court-gay-marriage-oral-arguments-transcript-audio-prop-8-hollingsworth-v-perry-89321.html (Tuesday).

However, I don’t recommend reading them. I scanned through them and found them to be bewildering and discombobulated, probably because of the rude interruptions justices seem to relish, save for Justice Thomas who listens courteously and rarely interrupts the flow of the proceedings.

Here are two particular distressing exchanges in the Wednesday proceedings:

JUSTICE KAGAN: “Well, is what happened in 1996—[Ed: the year the Defense of Marriage Act passed] and I’m going to quote from the House Report here—is that ‘Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’ Is that what happened in 1996?”

MR. CLEMENT: (Lawyer supposedly defending the Defense of Marriage Act.) “Does the House Report say that? that’s enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute.” p. 75

And again at pp. 92-93 on the morality question:

SOLICITOR GENERAL VERILLI: “This is discrimination in its most very basic aspect, and the House Report, whether—and I certainly would not suggest that it was universally motivated by something other than goodwill—but the reality is that it was an expression of moral disapproval of exactly the kind that this Court said in Lawrence [Ed. case legalizing sodomy]
would not justify the law that was struck down there.”

I say: HEAVENS TO MERGATROID. Gasp! A prudish, antiquarian statute based on the immorality of homosexual marriage. Let’s never let morality—especially Catholic morality—deter our lawmaking.

babbe

Beyond that I fear that we can expect little morality in the Court’s decision for that institution rarely upholds either law or morality. The court is a stranger to Truth.

As I have written in my volume of Epistles, The Proof of God’s Existence & Other Verses on Reason & Faith, the Supreme Court long ago lost its claim of authority on matters concerning the Constitution by its rampant deconstructionism:

* * *

Of Cratylus’s claim that words mean nothing,

Because their meanings always are changing,

To Aristotle a soph’morick trick:

If meanings are ne’er the same tick-to-tick,

How could Cratylus maintain his view sane

When each time he spoke he meant just the same

As that which previously he had said

And not the opposite, reverse instead!

(Cratylus, prophet of our modern courts,

In love with changing laws of contracts, torts;

And worst of all, our constitution fix’d,

By lawless deconstruction, long deep-six’d.)

* * *

For more on the Court’s maltreatment of the Constitution, please see The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed: Publication Information

Advertisements
Published in: on March 28, 2013 at 1:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/a-confusion-of-tongues-at-the-supreme-court/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: