 |
In the judicial process of the personnel in our U.S. Supreme Court, namely, the manner of approach unto the question of constitutionality of abortion in what is known as the ‘Alito Draft Opinion,’ an authentic opinion voted upon of all the justices, with the exception of Chief Justice John Roberts having not yet inputed his vote, and such an opinion not formally announced as an official decision, yet released to the ‘media press’ from within that Court, the voting of Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas, are tendered in support of the framing of the issue by Alito, and in his solution unto the issue, whereas, Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan, voted in opposition to the resolution.
Justice Alito cites the national, political contention of the issue of abortion, and brings our attention to his understanding of the matter as he officially frames it. Given his position as a Justice in our U.S. Supreme Court, the gravity of the issue before him and his colleagues, the exercise of his scholarism and the reaches of his professional process are laid before us to read and consider his best approach of the salient points of the issue, and how resolution of the matter is to be disposed. The preliminary voting of nearly all Justices on the issue, and a draft of the lengthy work produced; the action of the release of the draft opinion being publicly admonished by the Chief Justice, yet the contents of the draft withstanding any rebuke from the Court, it is fair for the people to look into the matter and examine such opinion, the framing of the issue, the approach of the scholarism, and the methods and logistics of the resolution.
In Alito’s perspective, and with the acquiescence of four of the nine justices, the role of the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court as to the legitimacy of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the ending of human life in the womb, after its point of initial creation, and in its early stage of formation, is to look into the Constitution to find wherein it may be interpreted that there is such a right to end the right of life of a human being while in the womb. Justice Alito, quickly settles his understanding and expresses his response that the action of human abortion is in the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional. All would seem well and good, but it is in the continuance of Alito’s opinion that an interruption of his decisive opinion, and one would hope, deliberately thoughtful and carefully researched finding— that the right to end the life of an individual human in the womb is neither constitutional nor to be found in the ‘traditions’ of the American life historicity. Alito speaks at length of the traditions of America, as he frames his explanation of how he finds the issue to be best approached,—‘is abortion constitutional?’ Alito dismisses the obligation of that court to defend foundational, natural law as clearly proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and in the 9th Amendment to the Constitution, and he also dismisses the originalist judicial interpretation of the founding spirit of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, whose sum congressional works from 1776 through 1820, saw slavery as in direct opposition to the spirit of liberty and justice for all. ‘Tradition’ and ‘ordered liberty,’ as Alito invoked often in his 92 page opinion, become abstract language instruments that can be given whatever value and interpretation Alito so chooses as he used his judicial position to review our fundamental laws, and laws derived from these.
What is American tradition without the scholarism of the writings of Abraham Lincoln as he, himself (1) defended the spirit of 1776, (2) the language of our first national political agreement to be a people, (3) and the sum intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as evidenced through their governmental works up to 1820? What scholarly research, critical observation that is unbiased, objective, and altruist, professes to render finality of serious opinion without addressing the work to end slavery that was begun by George Washington, that was continued through the efforts of Frederick Douglass,—an American slave transformed into a practical intellectual who called and advocated for the ‘ordered liberty’ that was begin with the promise of the Declaration of 1776? The traditions of these mentioned, if we were to only read their words understand and adhere to the ‘ordered liberty’ that was initiated with the proclamation and promise that we are created equal, with the right to life & liberty, that we be safe and happy, with the right and solemn duty to assure, through the altering or abolishment of it, that government of and for the people remain.
But the inalienable rights that we are created equal, and our right to life & liberty are nowhere to be found in the Alito Draft Opinion. The exemplification of the traditions of ordered liberty of the best champions of our American liberty are not mentioned, nor is the objective acclaim of their work found in the Alito invocation of American tradition and ordered liberty. What we are left with is Alito’s abstract judicial review of the law, and his activism that though the matter of abortion is to be found unconstitutional, the matter of the right to life and that we are created equal is carefully not mentioned in his opinion! What he gives to us is the directive of judicial abdication on the matter after he has called the issue of abortion unconstitutional: he tells us that it shall be for both the people and the state governments to decide for themselves if they will legislate protection of abortion or protection of life. He does not give us a defense of our fundamental law, nor a professional account of American tradition that would support the ordered liberty he speaks of—
Justice Alito gives us a return to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 wherein the formalization of free states and slave states was enacted. What Justice Alito gives us is the finding that Abraham Lincoln so often described in his debates with Stephen Douglas: he gives us ‘Popular Sovereignty:’ that a person can own a person, and a third person, nor government can object.
That is not sound, or professional jurisprudence, but a judicial review that chooses to ignore foundational, fundamental natural law. Justice Alito reviewed our Constitution, and as a Supreme Court Justice obligated to apply the interpretation of the law as it was originally intended, has instead ignored the 9th Amendment of our Constitution that at its very least, supports the foundational proclamations of natural law in our Declaration of Independence. No, what Justice Alito and all the other Justices that affirmed his opinion put before us have done is to continue to water down their professional integrity: appeasing unto a political and populist rhetoric cloaked in constitutional language that cannot find its way to connecting the 9th Amendment with the self-evident natural law declarations of 1776. And that is judicial review,— and it is an ideological activism of the personnel of that court.
Judicial review: a precedent created in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison court opinion: The ‘review’ of the law is not merely a research of it, but a selective judgement of prioritization of it that does not equally apply its entirety or original intention to a particular case. In example, Justice Alito’s selectivity of ignoring the 9th Amendment and the natural law in the Declaration of Independence that specifically speaks of the most elemental of America’s laws, the right to life & liberty.
What ordered liberty and American traditions Justice Alito speaks of is more akin to the convoluted narratives of the Slavery Democrats, themselves reviewing our fundamental, foundational laws and still choosing to find humanity of black skin color as not equal to humanity of white skin color, nor a human at all. Alito would do better had he brought himself to read all the Congressional actions of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, he would have done better had he paused at John Quincy Adams and his tradition of being the solitary defense of the spirit of liberty and justice for all, he would have done better had he read the words of Abraham Lincoln,—then would have Justice Alito understood the heart and minds of the true American tradition for ordered liberty and justice for all. Because human life is precious, and the value of it is not a political triviality to be dismissed. Those innocent ‘baby’s’, as God calls us in Judeo-Christian scripture surely feel the pain of having their limbs severed and their necks cut in half. What political process of gradualism that was effected in the time of slavery, cannot be logically or morally correct as it pertains to the matter of humanity in the womb: the slaves were not being daily cut asunder in horrific death three thousand times a day. So it is that the preservation of the political union of our nation is as important now as it was then, yet the policy of gradualism in the face of horrific daily death is not ordered liberty, but a departure from it and a barbarity.
Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion is not a professional judicial work, but an aberration in opposition to foundational, fundamental natural law, an imposition of ideological activism too appease abortionism, and a formalization of political division that asks the people and its government to accept that the office of the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to render opinions that conflict with the true ordered liberty and American traditions, with the Constitution, and with the Declaration of Independence. The personnel of our U.S. Supreme Court asks that we accept the reverse of our original spirit of liberty and justice for all, and to become a national people who acquiesce to the continuity of murdering our children, and that these be considered not humans, but the property of the women whose wombs they grow in. That is the same exact playbook of the Slavery Democrats, and it is called ‘Popular Sovereignty.’ The ordered liberty and American traditions that Alito is abstractly and opaquely explaining to us as he words the continuance of his opinion, is a false option that is not founded on the true side of the defense of liberty from its altruist defending champions, but an unscholarly attempt to give judicial credence to that slavery doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the policy of legal gradualism, that so often works in so many situations, but not when the torturous loss of human life is happening 3,000 times a day.
Does Justice Alito’s ideology, as we can now understand it, based in some other heritage that is estranged from the gentle promise of our foundational, fundamental law? What has been our heritage, if not a human desire to self-determine our life, that we be at liberty, that we be safe, and that we be happy?
What was the heritage of the pilgrims that arrived unto the shores of the new world, if not a purposed venture into the unknown to settle a life where they would be able to have the liberty to worship God as they chose, and not as it was ordered unto them? What is the legacy of the colonists, if not that they labored an existence as individuals and families desirous to live a life as distant as possible from the monarchical governing system caste social order that was Europe? They saw an opportunity of a better life based on increased individual liberty and self-determination. The American Revolutionary epoch defining that spirit in both word and action. What was the sum effect of the Congressional actions Abraham Lincoln outlined in his research of the times between 1776 and 1820 unto the protection of individual life & liberty, if not a purposed repeated action to limit, constrain, hinder, and ultimately extinguish the enslavement of people of black skin color. Such an injustice being a wrong against humanity, and a direct opposition against the spirit of human liberty and self determination that is the natural canon of the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution.
What was the abolitionist era, but a relentless defense of both humanity and an affirmation of our founding spirit of the American political body,— these written proclamations of 1776, creating our first government, and identifying natural law as the foundation of the American nation.
Is it not so that the servant leaders of each of these eras have either called on others or exemplified that we must care about the rights of humanity?, their struggles, journeys, patient endurances, careful deliberations, and inner spirit all coming to the declaration of independence? That is ordered liberty! A declaration of the rights of humanity, that we must not be indifferent; that we must defend and preserve the spirit of liberty and the understanding of the spirit of liberty and justice for all, with the end purpose that we all be safe and happy: actively seeking the freedom, liberty and protection of, and if need be, the restoration of a quality life that declares we are all created equal, and if created equal, with the inalienable rights to individual life & liberty; and that natural right to assure that the ordered liberty that is supposed to be the establishment of good government, the altering or abolishment of government if it is found to be in continual egregious unsurpation of that foundation; that such a requirement of the civilian citizen be exercised and completed as a solemn duty unto the American way of life,— is our right to alter and abolish; that solemn duty to observe and study the workings of government and the quality of life in our society; that government reflect the original understanding of that spirit of liberty and justice for all—is our ordered liberty and our American tradition.
Comments