Why the Hate? Why the Threats Against Supreme Court Justices?

Headline 4 March 2020 | Schumer to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: ‘You Will Pay the Price’ – ‘Won’t Know What Hit You’ if You Make ‘Awful Decisions’

Headline 4 March 2020 | Roberts rebukes Schumer for saying justices will ‘pay the price’ for a vote against abortion rights

Perhaps the best point at which to start is with the respective, fundamental roles of federal government.

  • The Legislative Branch creates laws.
  • The Executive Branch administers laws.
  • The Judicial Branch resolves disputes between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

For the sake of clarity, pro choice is a euphemism for pro abortion.

Various polls indicate our fellow Americans are divided on the issue of the willful killing of unborn babies and the outright prohibition of the practice.

Historically, the Supreme Court has both followed the Supreme Law of the Land and created law out of thin air. Consider the following ‘rights’.

The right to privacy is not a constitutional doctrine. It was nonexistent from 1789 until 1965 when the Supreme Court interpreted the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments as the basis for a right to privacy. On matters not explicitly in either the Constitution or statutes, interpretation is a reasonable and accepted practice of the judiciary. Individual and collective worldviews shape interpretations.

The interpreted right to privacy, now a judicial precedent, was a gateway Supreme Court interpretation that was used to defend hitherto unacceptable behaviors, leading to the legalization of sodomy, redefined as homosexuality by psychologists in the 19th century as a collective term for a variety of sexual acts apart from male-female.

  • The 14th Amendment, intended to protect former slaves, assures natural citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil
  • The 15th Amendment, intended to assure the right to vote for for former slaves
  • The 21st Amendment which chiefly repealed the 18th, prohibition of alcoholic beverages

In 1973, the court opinion on Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court created a new right out of thin air, the right to murder babies in the womb. This decision was chiefly based on the earlier interpretation of a right to privacy.

Roe declares that the states may not ban abortions during the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy because the states have no interest in or right to protect the baby during that time period. This made-up rule was a radical and unconstitutional departure from nearly 200 years of jurisprudence, during which the states themselves decided what interests to protect, guided since the end of the Civil War by the prohibition on slavery, and the requirements of due process and equal protection.

During the second trimester of pregnancy, the court declared in the Roe case, states may regulate abortions but only to protect the health of the mother, not the life of the baby, in which, the court found inexplicably, the states have no interest. This, too, was a radical departure from well-settled law.

Under Roe, during the third trimester of pregnancy, the states may ban abortions or they may permit them; they may protect the life of the baby or they may not protect it. This diabolic rule, the product of judicial compromise and an embarrassing and destructive rejection of the Civil War era constitutional amendments, permits the states to allow abortions up to the moment before birth, as is the law in New Jersey, where the state even pays for abortions for those who cannot afford them.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: The Supreme Court’s most controversial decision since World War II, 12 December 2018

The pseudo-science underpinning Roe v. Wade was the belief that the baby in the womb was not a living human being in the first trimester. Contemporary scientific knowledge reveals babies in the womb are capable of feeling pain at 20 week gestation and earlier. Contemporary science and technology ascertain fetal heartbeat around the 3rd week of gestation.

The clinical basis for Roe v. Wade in the 1st trimester is now found to be invalid, thereby opening the door to challenges by the states and individuals.

Unrestricted abortion, unrestricted murder of babies in the womb, even after the child has successfully survived live birth, is now a mainstay of the Democratic Party.

Why Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his fellow Democrats hate children bewilders thinking Americans.

Findings of a national poll reveal vast majorities of Americans reject abortion the day before a child is born (80%), abortion in the third trimester (79%), and removing medical care for a viable child after birth (82%).

The only logical conclusion is simply this: Chuck Schumer has a pecuniary motive for the murder of children in the womb, an interest consistent with the pecuniary interests of infamous abortionists Kermit Gosnell and Ulrich Klopfer who stored their victims in glass jars.

The logical conclusion is Chuck Schumer and Planned Parenthood prefer money over the lives of millions of American children brutally slaughtered by abortionists.

John White
Rockwall, Texas

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s