Donald Trump, the Supreme Court, and Our Children

Last week the United States Supreme Court struck down a Texas law calling for more regulation of abortion providers in the Lone Star state. The regulations had been aimed at protecting the health and safety of women by "by requiring abortion clinics to meet the kinds of medical and safety standards that legitimate medical centers meet."

Also last week that same Supreme Court refused to hear a Washington state ruling forcing pro-life pharmacists to sell drugs that, by causing abortion, violate the pharmacists' religious convictions.

These two cases are perfect examples of why I remain unconvinced by the argument that conservatives who have rejected Donald Trump need to disregard all their reasons for not supporting him and do so because, if nothing else, he will at least put conservative justices on the court. In the first place, I don’t have great faith in Donald Trump to stand by his word. In the second place, the conservative cause has not fared too well with the Supreme Court of late, Republican appointees notwithstanding. Anthony Kennedy, who voted with the majority on both decisions, was appointed by Reagan. Reagan was arguably the most pro-life President we ever had. Yet here we are.

By way of reminder, here are a few more examples from recent and not-so-recent history of Republican-appointed justices not assisting the cause of conservatives:

1) Anthony Kennedy (again, a Reagan appointee) joining with the liberals on the court on gay marriage.

2) George W. Bush appointee John Roberts' repeated bailing out of Obamacare.

3) The votes of Nixon appointees Blackmun, Burger and Powell with the pro-choice side of the Roe v. Wade decision.

4) George H. W. Bush appointee David Souter's turning out to be one of the best friends the causes of Planned Parenthod, the ACLU, and eminent domain ever had.

Time and time again this election season I have been told by some of my fellow conservatives that we are not electing a pastor but a President and that it is necessary for me to compromise my principles because Supreme Court. The events of recent days have only strengthened my conviction that doing so would be a devil’s bargain, a selling of my soul that would gain little in return.

As a parent trying to teach my child right from wrong, what has become clear to me over the last almost 25 years is that human behavior is much more influenced by example than it is by external rules. The old poem "Children Learn What They Live" got it right. Parents can talk unceasingly about telling the truth. If they are repeatedly dishonest in their own personal and professional dealings, that is what a child will learn. If they readily toss their convictions for reasons of pragmatism, children will learn that, too.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have rules or teach principles of right and wrong. Of course we should. But rules don't change hearts. And in the heart/mind battle over decisions of conscience, it is usually the heart that wins. Why do you think we term something that has been truly learned as being "taken to heart" or "learned by heart"? The heart is where the rubber of our principles meets the road of our life--where gut checks happen and all that we believe is put to the test.

I am not saying that conservatives should give up. To the contrary, we need to work harder than ever before. But we deceive ourselves if we think the battle is ultimately going to be won in the public arena. The Supreme Court has demonstrated that it cannot be counted on to do its job. Conservatives’ best hope, then, is our children, for theirs are the minds and hearts we have the greatest capacity to change. We cannot hope to do so by voting for someone whose life and behavior make a mockery of everything we have tried to teach them.

Begging the Question

The misuse of this phrase is one of my pet peeves. I wrote about it almost six years ago and obviously the people who should have read my post didn't because the situation has only gotten worse.

I was talking to my adult son the other day, and he pointed out an example of begging the question (the real thing, not the thing that people incorrectly call begging the question) that is cropping up quite a bit of late. It is happening in the debate over same sex marriage, which is coming to the fore as the Supreme Court hears several cases on the issue.  We keep hearing from those who favor same sex "marriage" that marriage is a civil right that should be equally available to all citizens. But this begs the question because it builds the desired conclusion into the premise. The point of contention is not whether anyone who wants to get married should be able to. The point of contention has to do with how we as a society define marriage. Is marriage by its definition something that a same sex couple can participate in? Those who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian view of marriage would say no. So the very use of the phrase "same sex marriage" assumes an agreement regarding terms that in fact does not exist. Question, meet unsupported premise, begging for validity.

If you, like I, are annoyed by the misuse of this phrase, maybe this example will come in handy. On the other hand, maybe it will just heighten your frustration since most of the offenders are television talking heads whom we will never have the opportunity to instruct!

I Clicked

And in so doing I read this. Maybe, just maybe, a glimmer of hope.

Life Update Number I-Don't-Even-Know

If you're friends with me on Facebook you already know some of this, but maybe not all, so if you want to make sure you are completely informed about the mundane trivialities of my existence you will have to read the whole post. :-)

We spent the Fourth at home. We generally don't go to see fireworks anywhere--for our introverted, highly sensitive group such an event is too crowded, noisy, and this year, too hot. So instead we stayed in and enjoyed a slower pace, watching some tennis, grilling some burgers, and working on a few house tasks. I returned to my kitchen painting project, which has been neglected for months now. It is a slow process because in one of my rare daring moments I decided it would be fun to have a red kitchen (Valspar Heirloom Red, to be precise). What was I even thinking? I know what I was thinking. I am going to love it when it's done. But everything is requiring a minimum of one coat of primer and two coats of paint. And my kitchen has a lot of corners, so this is going to take a while. (One of these days I'll post before and after pictures.)

In honor of Independence Day, we took time after supper to read the Declaration of Independence. Have you ever done that? If not, you should. It's not very long and is a classic example of inductive reasoning. And, oh yeah, it's how our country got started! 

After reading aloud together we gathered around the piano for some patriotic songs and Evan did some robust flag-waving. Then we wrapped up the evening with a few episodes of the Peanuts This is America, Charlie Brown DVD. (And I can't believe the price on that item! I know we didn't pay anywhere near that much!)

Caitlin is not pictured above as she is away this week attending Higher Things, an annual conference for Lutheran youth. She is going with our good friends from Nebraska. Pictured below is the handoff, somewhere on I-80. You can see that she fits right in with this group! Trevor is not attending Higher Things but was along for the ride, as Phillip took him to Lincoln for a summer lesson with his piano professor at University of Nebraska on this same trip. While they were in Lincoln, Phillip, Trevor and Caitlin took time to visit the Nebraska state capitol building and Caitlin got a little more familiar with the UNL campus. College is still several years away for her, but she is starting to compile a list of institutions to consider, and UNL is one.

Hey, I think I recognize those t-shirts! :-)

I was devastated by the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare this week. I am too devastated to blog about it. What were they even thinking?

In spite of the extreme temperatures our garden seems to be doing well. We have been enjoying our romaine lettuce for weeks now and have made one round of pesto. Several of the broccoli plants played out early but one is producing nicely. Parsley is looking good, tomatoes are starting to ripen and okra is hitting its stride. The jury is still out on the cucumbers, peas and beans, though.

Today I am leaving to drive part of the way to Missouri to pick up Caitlin. I will stay with an old, dear friend in Iowa tonight and get a much needed hug. Make that ten hugs. It has been a very difficult spring. I do not want to share details at this time, but if you are reading I would appreciate your prayers for our family. We are in need of God's direction for us, and until that direction is made known, patience and faith and peace of mind and spirit. But most of all, we could use some answers, and we could use them soon. We are boldly praying and would deeply appreciate your praying with us for some things in our lives to be resolved in the near future in a way that would lead to much rejoicing! Thank you for reading. Stay cool!

Gut Reaction

In addition to ruling on Obamacare on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled on the "Stolen Valor" statute signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The law had made it a crime to lie about one's having received military honors or medals. The Supreme Court struck it down by a 6-3 vote.

While I understand the indignation of American citizens at those who would misrepresent their military record so as to get accolades of which they are undeserving, I also worry about the precedent that would be set by allowing the government to become the arbiter of truth in the public forum. We already have laws making it a crime to lie under oath. If we start allowing the government to categorize other lies according to their level of offensiveness, I have to wonder where it will stop? Especially now, with Obamacare still breathing and providing the federal government even more of an excuse to invade every aspect of our daily lives, do we really need to grant it the power to decide what kinds of lies are acceptable and what kinds are not? Again, unless it's done under oath, I consider lying to be a moral/spiritual offense, not a legal one.

Disclaimer: I have been paying attention to very little these days apart from the care and feeding of my own barracks and the troops therein, so I could be sadly misinformed on this whole issue. But this is what my gut tells me. Please be kind to my gut. It's had a hard year.

Stupid Housewife Thoughts

One of the questions being asked about Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan is whether or not she's a lesbian.

I don't care. If she's not making an issue of it, coming out militantly in favor of a gay rights' agenda, then in my opinion it's not worth talking about. A lot of public servants engage in behaviors that are against my personal moral code. For example, I daresay that many politicians whose views I agree with have committed the sin of fornication. I think that is wrong. But in today's culture it is common for people to not see anything wrong with it. So as much as I would like for all of my leaders to live a sexually pure and decent life, I don't think realistically that I have much hope of that. Therefore, if a person doesn't engage in a behavior publicly, flaunting and defending it as an "alternative" choice that is as legitimate as any other, and if the behavior doesn't compromise his ability to do his job, I am not going to lose sleep over it. We all sin daily and fall short of the glory of God in ways big and small. The question for me when it comes to a public figure is whether or not the sin is being committed in such a way that its consequences are foisted on those the public figure is called to serve.

Back to Elena Kagan. Interestingly enough, it is not the conservatives who are politically opposed to her that seem to be most obsessed with the question of her sexuality. It is, rather, her political allies and friends. Case in point: this column in The Washington Post, penned by Ruth Marcus, who identifies herself as a friend of Kagan's. The opening sentence of her column:

"She's not gay, okay?"

Marcus goes on to say that she wishes Kagan were gay because it would be of great benefit to the country to have an openly gay woman on the Supreme Court, but that she knows for a fact that such is not the case, and that the only reason people are talking about Kagan's sexual identity is because she is an older woman who has never married nor had children.

I appreciate Marcus' point. An "older" woman's lack of husband and children (I'm putting "older" in quotation marks because I don't think Kagan is much older than I!) should not be taken as reason to suspect that she is a lesbian! God does not call every woman to the vocation of wife and mother. But after arguing that we should not come to one conclusion about Kagan based upon her lack of a husband, Marcus goes on to promote another that I think is just as silly: in her opinion, Kagan is just too smart for marriage and motherhood.

I'm suddenly having a flashback to the 1970's, when the militant women's liberation movement was still raging and the argument was that there were two kinds of women: thinking types who went out and got a "real" job, and heads full of mush who opted to stay home and rear their children.

I thought we had gotten beyond that mindset. I guess not.

So Cate, Melody, Lora, Jane, Elephant's Child, Susan, and Rebekah, Reb. Mary and Gauntlets, I have some news for you: the only reason you have a husband and kids is that you're not very bright. If you had been smarter, those guys wouldn't have married you. And the fact that you are home caring for them and their children instead of out in the workforce means that you are even dumber than we suspected. (By the way, that list of links could have been longer. But my poor, feeble, little brain is tiring so I had better wrap up this post while I have some mental juice remaining).

Of course, I'm being ironic. The ladies to whose blogs I have linked are not only stay-at-home moms but are some of the smartest people I know. But here's a thought that is not meant to be ironic. Maybe Elena Kagan has never been married because she just hasn't found the right guy yet. Or maybe God has other plans for her (plans which I personally hope don't include being on the Supreme Court, but on that one I'm not holding my breath).

An Obama Litmus Test?

One can't help but wonder if personal tax problems--or at the very least, questions--are a resumé requirement for Obama appointees.

HT: The Corner on National Review

The Constitution is Not an "Abstract Legal Theory"

Here's what President Obama had to say yesterday about what will guide him in nominating a new Supreme Court justice (emphases mine):

“Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”

This statement troubles me deeply (but doesn't surprise me). It represents a seriously radical and activitist philosophy regarding the judicial branch of the government. Note that he doesn't say he will look for someone who will honor the Constitution, only someone who will honor constitutional "traditions" and "values." He acknowledges that there are limits to judicial power, but qualifies his acknowledgement with the adjective "appropriate"--I bet I know who gets to define what are "appropriate" limits and what are not. He elevates the effects of laws on individuals above the rule of law itself, which sounds like a good and compassionate thing, but which calls into qustion any law that can be shown to have an undesirable effect on an individual citizen. Last night on Fox News Charles Krauthammer pointed out that in fact this is a total skewing of the duties of the branches of government. It is the lawmakers' role to think about how the laws they pass will affect citizens; it is the judges' role to interpret those laws dispassionately and precisely. Otherwise, as Krauthammer noted, a bank could never foreclose on a mortgage, because after all, such an action negatively impacts the one being foreclosed on.

Is this so hard to understand? Why don't more people get it?

Gambling on the Future

Remember this song?

On a warm summer's evenin' on a train bound for nowhere,

I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep.

So we took turns a starin' out the window at the darkness

'Til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.

He said, "Son, I've made a life out of readin' people's faces,

And knowin' what their cards were by the way they held their eyes.

And if you don't mind my sayin', I can see you're out of aces.

For a taste of your whiskey I'll give you some advice."

So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow.

Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light.

And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression.

Said, "If you're gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

Ev'ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin'

Is knowin' what to throw away and knowing what to keep.

'Cause ev'ry hand's a winner and ev'ry hand's a loser,

And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep."

And when he'd finished speakin', he turned back towards the window,

Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep.

And somewhere in the darkness, the gambler, he broke even.

But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.

You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table.

There'll be time enough for countin' when the dealin's done.

(Kenny Rogers, "The Gambler")

Just read an excellent column at American Thinker, a site that all conservatives should know about, that Gambler-like asks and attempts to answer what are right now the two million-dollar questions: what battles--at least for the foreseeable future--have conservatives lost? And in what battles do we still stand a chance of prevailing? If we can answer those questions with some accuracy we can focus our energy where we actually have a chance of making a difference.

The list of areas in which the author, Larrey Anderson, says we have been beaten and should resign ourselves to the Obama agenda is frightening:

1) The Judiciary
2) Socialized Health Care
3) Higher Taxes
4) The War on Terror
5) Bailouts

Here are the areas in which he says we should keep fighting:

1) Illegal immigration
2) Education
3) Freedom of Religious Expression
4) Global Warming/Energy

I encourage you to go read the entire article to see what he specifically says about each of these areas, both the ones he claims we have lost and we ones in which we still have a fighting chance.

Anderson ends with this admonition:

"My advice to conservatives for the next two years: Focus on the fundamentals--especially education and freedom of religious expression. It will be almost impossible for us to stop most of the socialist political agenda that will soon be law. We must educate our children, our neighbors, and ourselves in an effort to insure that next time around 'we don't get fooled again.'"

Good advice for any time, but never moreso than right now. I'm more convinced than ever that Christian homeschoolers may be the force that rises up in the next generation to lead this country back to its roots.

I think I'll go work on indoctrinating a few members of that next generation right now.

The Court and the War

During the course of this election season, I have more than once heard it said--usually by fellow conservatives--that a choice between John McCain and the Democrat candidate, whether Clinton or Obama, is no choice at all because of McCain's departure from conservative ideology on several issues. I have all along rejected that argument, seeing a huge difference between a McCain presidency and a Clinton or Obama one, and I early on decided to support McCain wholeheartedly because of the lasting damage I think a Democrat in the White House would do at what is one of the most critical points in our nation's history that I think I have witnessed in my lifetime. For me, the two most defining issues of this election are the Iraq War and the Supreme Court, and I think a Democratic victory in the fall would have a devastating effect on both, leading to a self-defeating military retreat that would compromise our national security and the appointment of justices that would turn our Supreme Court into a bastion of liberal activism instead of the Constitutional lockbox it should be.

Now those two issues--the War and the Court--have intersected in a way that chillingly highlights the choice before us come November. In case you missed it, the Supreme Court last week granted a writ of habeas corpus to Lakhdar Boumediene, a Guantanamo Bay detainee with known ties to al Qaida. In doing so they have ignored both precedent and the Constitution and created a new precedent that will impact the effectiveness of our military in frightening ways. Professor of Law John Yoo explains it much better than I can--please go read. Then take note that Barack Obama has embraced this ruling and John McCain has condemned it.

For me the choice is clear and becomes clearer by the hour. The difference between these two candidates is huge and the stakes are high. A vote for anyone but John McCain in this election is a vote for Mr. Obama. If that scares you as much as it scares me, it's time to support the candidate that has the best chance of preventing that outcome and thus keeping us safe.