Stare Decisis Has No Standing in the Court of Christ the King

As I am ever aware of the fact that the bombardment of daily news and babbling commentary is such, it would be unreasonable for me to expect that the readers of this site can retain everything that has been written hereon in the past sixteen years. It is thus necessary, at least as I see it, to remind those reading this commentary of two basic points that have been made over and over again after the Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) renders a decision contrary to the immutable laws of God and thus contrary to both the common temporal good and to the good of men and their eternal salvation.

First, the Constitution of the United States of America is defenseless against the misuse, misinterpretation and misapplication of the plain words contained in its text as it admits of no higher authority other than those words as the basis of judicial review and decision-making.

Without admitting the existence the Divine Law and the Natural Law, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America left, no matter how wittingly or unwittingly, their handiwork to be used as an empty vessel into which could be read whatever subsequent generations of jurists and constitutional “experts” might “decide” about the meaning of words in situations when they want to construe those words in exactly their contrary sense to achieve some “noble” outcome.  In other words, as has been repeated so frequently, a constitution that admits of nothing above its own text as the standard of interpretation and application is as malleable in the hands of legal positivists/deconstructionists as Sacred Scripture in the hands of Protestants, the Orthodox and Modernists.

Second, the failure to admit of a higher authority and the concomitant failure to recognize a Divinely-instituted authority, the Catholic Church, as the sole arbiter of all that pertains to the sanctification and salvation of men leads to the utter insanity—and it is nothing other than that, insanity—of grown men arguing about the inarguable.

Contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead have no authority from the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, to anything with the binding precepts of the Divine Law and the Natural Law other than to defer to them in every circumstance dealing with moral right and wrong. While men of good will, a categorization that is almost nonexistent in today’s world of heathenism, hedonism and barbarism, can disagree about specific measures to be imposed upon malefactors who commit grievous crimes in violation of those precepts, they are free legitimately to “declare” that what is morally heinous constitutes a “human right” that must be accorded protection under the cover of the civil law.

This is all so obvious to anyone right-minded Catholic that it is phenomenal, at least to me, that there is any need to state it, no less to have to do so repeatedly time and time again. It is also phenomenal that it is in anyway necessary to point out that it is way past time to think that the Supreme Court of the United States of America will ever reverse its decisions in the case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992, that has cemented the decriminalization and constitutional glorification of the surgical execution of the innocent preborn or that it will ever undo the series of decisions (Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor, June 26, 2013, and Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015) that have made the sin of Sodom and its related perverse vices legally, politically and even culturally unassailable, meaning that “polyamorous” relationships, pedophilia and bestiality will all receive constitutional “protection” sooner or later just as the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, made the decision in cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton inevitable.

It is thus with this necessary introduction that a few comments will be offered on the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020. A separate commentary upon the decision in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, June 15, 2020, will follow in two or three days.

Arguing Over How to Make Safe That Which Is Inherently Unsafe

The utter absurdity represented by the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020, is that nine grown human beings with law degrees and with an aggregate service time of approximately one hundred thirty seven years on the Supreme Court of the United States of America had to argue about what constitutes an “unreasonable burden” on an expectant mother’s ability to paid for the assassination of her child under the cover of the civil and whether it is “necessary” to insure that a surgical assassin of children needs to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles to assure the “safety” of a procedure that is forbidden by the law of God, deadly to the baby and deadly to the souls of the mother, the baby-killer and all those involved in aiding, abetting or coercing the execution. This is not only absurdity. This is insanity.

No one, whether acting on his own or collectively with others in institutions of civil governance, has any authority from God to dispense with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment that are inscribed on the very flesh of human hearts, and no one. Everything in human society must unravel once men deify themselves and then make sophistic arguments about how the evils they have let loose on their nations can be “safe” and “accessible” to those who desire to participate in them. Secular, naturalistic, humanistic and religiously indifferentist-based arguments cannot possibly withstand legal positivism’s promotion of evil by specious arguments that accepted immoral legal “precedents” and thus “binding” upon jurists in their deliberations.

Immoral laws have no standing with Our Divine Judge, Christ the King, and thus they can never be accepted as normal by anyone who cares for the right-ordering of his nation and for the salvation of his immortal soul. Pope Leo XIII summarized Catholic teaching on this point very clearly in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoinCommands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: "Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'' To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Governments that are “religiously neutral,” however, must end up awash in a sewer of evil as men, especially today given the paucity of a superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Grace caused by the sacramentally barren liturgical rites of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, govern themselves and their nations by means of sentimentality or raw majoritarian impulses. Such governmental systems must place jurists who might know better into making one legal argument after another, no matter how constitutionally or statutorily sound, on a purely naturalistic basis, thus placing into strait-jackets from which it is impossible to extricate themselves. One cannot fight naturalism/secularism/humanism with naturalism/secularism/humanism. One can only fight naturalism/secularism/humanism with Catholicism, Nothing.

There is little need to discourse on the abject sophistry of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s plurality opinion in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo. One excerpt from his forty pages of legal positivism will suffice for the purposes of this commentary:

Turning to the merits, we apply the constitutional standards set forth in our earlier abortion-related cases, and in particular in Casey and Whole Woman’s Health. At the risk of repetition, we remind the reader of the standards we described above. In Whole Woman’s Health, we quoted Casey in explaining that “‘a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.’” 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (quoting Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opinion)). We added that “ ‘[u]nnecessary health regulations’” impose an unconstitutional “‘undue burden’” if they have “‘the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.’” 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 19) (quoting Casey, 505 U. S., at 878; emphasis added).

We went on to explain that, in applying these standards, courts must “consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.” 579 U. S., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 19–20). We cautioned that courts “must review legislative ‘factfinding under a deferential standard.’” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 20) (quoting Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 165). But they “must not ‘place dispositive weight’ on those ‘findings,’” for the courts “‘retai[n] an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.’” 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 20) (quoting Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 165; emphasis deleted). (June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.)

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s sophistry is premised upon accepting five fundamental falsehoods:

  1. That the surgical execution of innocent preborn children is a legitimate “choice” that an expectant mother can make.
  2. That the civil law has an obligation to recognize this “right to choose” to kill an innocent human being.
  3. That the Constitution of the United States of America does indeed confer such a “right to choose” to kill an innocent human being.
  4. That no kind of legislation, whether passed by the Congress of the United States of America or state legislatures, can place an “undue burden” on women who seek to exercise their “right to choose” to kill their own children.

Refuting these underlying falsehoods:

  1. No one has the “right to choose” to kill an innocent human being. An expectant mother has an obligation before God to nurture a child in her womb and then to succor him in the Holy Faith after his birth. There is no “choice” to be made, only a child to be loved.
  2. The killing of a preborn child is not a matter of “women’s health;” it is a clear defiance of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.
  3. As noted above, the civil law has an obligation to protect innocent life. Any law that consigns any innocent human being to execution is an unjust law and must be resisted and defied.
  4. The claim that the Constitution of the United States of America confers a “right to privacy” that protects both contraception, which is a denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, and abortion is an exercise in judicial deconstructionism. An argument can be made very plainly that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America protect innocent human life. Alas, secular arguments, as noted above, will never withstand the force of those who are concerned about their own carnal desires and their licentious lust to extinguish the life of a child who would cause them to make sacrifices and to love someone other than themselves for the first time in their lives.
  5. No one, whether in or out of public life in any capacity, can dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law by means of executive, legislative or judicial fiats. Public officials are free to discuss the appropriate penalties to be imposed upon those who kill innocent human beings. However, they are not to state that such killings are “permissible” and that efforts to curb them are forbidden.

In other words, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and the other three justices who joined in his plurality opinion in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) are heaping hot coals upon their heads for their persistence in the protection of the genocide of innocent human beings in the womb, and it will be very likely that any and all court challenges to laws passed in New York, Virginia, Rhode Island and elsewhere protecting the killing of babies after their births will be struck down and the laws themselves upheld.

Too strong?

Consider the words of the egregious agent of evil named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, including her concurring decision in the case of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016:

Five years ago [in 2009], Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the most fascinating thing in a candid interview with Sunday New York Times Magazine reporter Emily Bazelon:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Excuse me? Populations that we don’t want to have too many of? Eugenics doesn’t really sound any better — indeed, it sounds a great deal worse — when it’s coming from a media-beloved Supreme Court Justice. My favorite part of the interview was that Bazelon didn’t even pause for a second. Just went on to her next question. Bazelon later said, unconvincingly, that she thought Ginsburg was just saying that other people had wanted Roe because they were eugenicists, or something. (Ruth Bader Ginsburg Really Wants Poor People to Stop Having Babies.)

Margaret Sanger would be proud of Ginsburg, a founding lawyer of the ultimate War on Women and true femininity called “feminism, who has consistently proved her abortion bona fides, something that she did in her concurring opinion in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016, the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help:

The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”). Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatorysurgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921–922. See also Brief for Social Science Researchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings”). Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection. (See Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 27, 2016, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.)

One who has no regard for the laws of God, not that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Talmudist, cares about those, of course, will easily throw away any regard for the actual words of a written constitution and statute laws, including those laws passed by state legislatures that seek to “regulate” the conditions under which babies may be killed. The fact that the “best” that some state legislatures can do is to seek to regulate abortuaries is itself a monumental testament to the fallibility of governmental systems that are not founded in a due regard for—and submission to—the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in all that pertains to the good of souls and thus to the common temporal good of nations.

Enter John Glover Roberts, Again

Obviously, the temporal good of nations means nothing to Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, who is concerned about the “good reputation” of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on the editorial and op-ed pages of The Washington Post. This ultimate swamp creature has betrayed every legitimate constitutional principle imaginable to justify his vote-shifting to preserve “popular” pieces of patently unconstitutional legislation, something that he did in in the combined cases of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 29, 2012, and King v. Burwell, June 26, 2015, to uphold the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act (ObamaDeathCare) and recently in his decision to punt on whether former president and master deep state capo tutti di capo Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s “Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was unconstitutional by claiming that the Trump administration’s attempt to reverse it did not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, June 20, 2020). Clearly, Roberts is betting that the Court will never have to deal with DACA again because the president he is thwarting at almost every turn, Donald John Trump, will be a former president come January 20, 2021.

Similarly, Roberts’s decision to join the Court’s four rank deconstructionists and positivists was entirely unsurprising. Indeed, it was predicted here in Sin: More Deadly Than the Coronavirus, part five, and I have been telling you for a long time now that the current Chief Justice of the United States of America would never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade no matter his public posturing in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo. Roberts has shown himself to be committed to upholding the “reputation” of the Court he heads, and it has been to accomplish this end that changed his vote at the last minute in the combined cases National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. and Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Florida, et al., June 29, 2012, and as  demonstrated his utter lack of consistent jurisprudential principles yet again in the June Medical Services case by claiming that this case was different than Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which he voted to uphold the law but was in the minority of the justices, when it was not.

Here is one excerpt of how John Glover Roberts sought to justify his jurisprudential gymnastics in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo:

The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.

Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) is the legal term for fidelity to precedent. Black’s Law Dictionary 1696 (11th ed. 2019). It has long been “an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come ROBERTS , C. J., concurring Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 3 ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69 (1765). This principle is grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them. Because the “private stock of reason . . . in each man is small, . . . individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” 3 E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France 110 (1790).

Adherence to precedent is necessary to “avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 529 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). The constraint of precedent distinguishes the judicial “method and philosophy from those of the political and legislative process.” Jackson, Decisional Law and Stare Decisis, 30 A. B. A. J. 334 (1944).

The doctrine also brings pragmatic benefits. Respect for precedent “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). It is the “means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). In that way, “stare decisis is an old friend of the common lawyer.” Jackson, supra, at 334.

Stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 20) (internal quotation marks omitted). But for precedent to mean anything, the doctrine must give way only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly. The Court accordingly considers additional factors before overruling a precedent, such as its adminstrability, its fit ROBERTS , C. J., concurring 4 JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment with subsequent factual and legal developments, and the reliance interests that the precedent has engendered. See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ____–____ (2018) (slip op., at 34–35).

Stare decisis principles also determine how we handle a decision that itself departed from the cases that came before it. In those instances, “[r]emaining true to an ‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases better serves the values of stare decisis than would following” the recent departure. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 231 (1995) (plurality opinion). Stare decisis is pragmatic and contextual, not “a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940). (June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.)

Here is a newsflash for the mercurial man without a legal principle to be found in his judicial  robes, the man who saw fit to censor United States Senator Rand Paul’s mention of Eric Ciaramella’s  name when the junior senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky saw fit to mention the infamous “whistleblower” during the impeachment trial of President Donald John Trump five months ago, John Glover Roberts: The legal principle of stare decisis had no standing in the Court of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King.

Roberts’s own piece of sophistry contains the following key points:

  1. The State of Louisiana’s law requiring baby-killers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of their slaughterhouses is indistinguishable from the Texas law that had been struck down by his august Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 26, 2015.)
  2. Roberts must stand by the outcome of the Whole Women’s Health case even though he had voted to uphold it.
  3. Many philosophers, including Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, have argued that one must take stock of the “general bank and capital of nations and ages.”
  4. Respect for stare decisis promotes respect for judicial integrity.
  5. Stare decisis can give way “only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly.”

John Glover Roberts’s exercise of rationalizing his own judicial cowardice and desire to appease the Court’s critics in defense of not placing an “undue burden” on a woman’s ability to kill her preborn baby in a “safe” facility is not only beneath contempt, it would be grounds for his impeachment and removal from office if the Congress of the United States of America were composed of right-thinking people, which it is not.

One of the first duties of a public official is to protect innocent human life, but almost no one in public life today, including most of those who consider themselves to be “pro-life” but who make immoral and illicit “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, believes this is so as they are focused almost exclusively on the Judeo-Calvinist pursuit of material well-being as the ultimate end of human existence and thus of government activity.

With this in mind, therefore, permit me to dispense with the Roberts’s five principle points from the passage of his concurring opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo excerpted just above:

  1. No law permitting the execution of any innocent human being—whether from the moment of conception through all subsequent stages—is unjust and invalid. Arguing about what constitutes an “undue burden” on actions that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is insanity of the sort that, objectively speaking, will weigh heavily upon the salvation of John Glover Robert’s immortal soul.
  2. To insist that one is bound by a “precedent” of protecting expectant mothers’ unfettered access to American slaughterhouses even though one voted against the “precedent” when it has been established only four years previously is an exercise in self-justification before men. It is, to use the colloquial, a “cop out.” It is, more formally, a dereliction of one’s judicial duty.
  3. It strains credulity to think even for a moment that Edmund Burke would have considered a legal “precedent” of four years’ vintage part of the “general bank and capital of nations and ages.” The “general bank and capital of nations and ages” refers to the entire heritage of Christendom even though Burke himself was an adherent of the Church of Ireland and thus had, no matter his sympathies for Catholics and for Catholicism, abandoned that “general bank and capital of nations and ages,” which includes the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by His true Church. One cannot say that the wanton slaughter of preborn babies, whether by surgical or chemical means, is part of the “general bank and capital of nations and ages.”
  4. Judicial integrity? Is John Roberts kidding? He is so enamored of his own brilliance that he cannot see that he has done much to erode judicial integrity by his constant efforts to misread the Constitution of the United States of America and to twice uphold the nationalization of the healthcare industry by seeking to legislate from the bench to preserve the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act. There can be no judicial integrity when judges ignore the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law to indemnify statists, baby-killers and sodomites while accepting statist claims about a pandemic as ground to shut down churches while allowing massive public protests.
  5. Here is a rationale for throwing out stare decisis when the decisis itself has no standing with Christ the King:

“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts of law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear . . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4,13-14).

“Thou shalt not kill!” This commandment from God, who alone has power to decide on life or death, was written in the hearts of men from the beginning, long before God gave the children of Israel on Mount Sinai his moral code in those lapidary sentences inscribed on stone which are recorded for us in Holy Scripture and which as children we learned by heart in the catechism. (Three Sermons of Bishop Clemens von Galen.)

John Glover Roberts does not consider this part of the “general bank and capital of nations and ages” as he is a self-made prisoner of judicial expediency masquerading as a respect for precedent. As I noted a few weeks ago but will do so again, John Glover Roberts is ignorant about Pope Pius XI’s admonition to magistrates who subject innocent children in the womb to execution and, most likely, he wouldn’t care even if is informed about one day:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Alas, everything must “be up for grabs” when the souls of men are not taught, sanctified and governed by Holy Mother Church. Unrepentant sins of the most vile manner imaginable must abound, resulting ultimate in entire races of walking “blank slates,” human beings who must decide “for themselves” that which has been ordained by God Himself in the Order of Nature (Creation) and the Order of Redemption (Grace.) Men come to think that they are demigods, beings who have the ability “to decide” what to think in matters to pertaining to Faith and Morals without assenting their intellects completely and without any reservation at all to what Holy Mother Church teaches infallibly.

Oh, you think that I am done with John Glover Roberts?

Not quite.

Consider the following piece of work from this mastermind of legal jurisprudence, who relied upon the completely immoral decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey, June 29, 1992, to strike down the Louisiana law requiring baby butchers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within thirty miles of his killing center:

In this context, courts applying a balancing test would be asked in essence to weigh the State’s interests in “protecting the potentiality of human life” and the health of the woman, on the one hand, against the woman’s liberty interest in defining her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” on the other. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851 (opinion of the Court); id., at 871 (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this Court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them if there were. Attempting to do so would be like “judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy,” Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U. S. 888, 897 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges, and would result in nothing other than an “unanalyzed exercise of judicial will” in the guise of a “neutral utilitarian calculus.” New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 369 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Nothing about Casey suggested that a weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion regulation was a job for the courts. On the contrary, we have explained that the “traditional rule” that “state and federal legislatures [have] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty” is “consistent with Casey.” (June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.)

Permit me to list the incredible fallacies contained in this excerpt from John Glover Roberts’s concurring opinion in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo before refuting each:

  1. The plurality decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert Casey must be considered as “controlling” to determine whether various restrictions placed on a woman’s “right to choose” to kill her preborn child can be upheld as constitutional or must be struck down under an “undue burden” test.
  2. It is impossible for the Supreme Court of the United States of America to balance protecting “‘the potentiality of human life’ and the health of the woman, on the one hand, against the woman’s liberty interest in defining her ‘own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life’ on the other.’”
  3. Ergo, the child in the womb has nothing other than “the potentiality of human life.”
  4. Ergo, baby-killing is a matter of a woman’s health.
  5. Ergo, a woman has the liberty to define “her own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
  6. The Court is incapable of giving weight to these “imponderables.”
  7. The Court would be engaged in an exercise of raw “judicial will” and to act as “legislators” by answering such “imponderables.”
  8. The facts about human life are matters of “scientific uncertainty.”

John Glover Roberts will be held accountable before the bar of Divine Justice for such reprehensible sophistries and falsehoods, which will be dispensed with as follows in six easy steps:

  1. Although this is repetitious, no human being, whether acting individually or collectively with others in institutions of human governance, has any authority from God to dispense with the absolute inviolability of innocent human life. Any executive decisions/orders, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, or judicial decisions in conflict with the Divine Positive Law and Natural Law are null and void. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is as illicit and as immoral as Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. This is sophistry writ large.
  2. There is no such thing as potential life. Life is or life is not. It is philosophically absurdity and a biological impossibility for there to be “potential life.”
  3. There is no doubt as to when life begins. Human life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact. Each human being has his own unique genetic code at the moment of conception, and the only things that are added thereafter are nutrition, hydration and the passage of time.
  4. Human life is a biological continuum; no one, man or woman, is morally free to define his or her own concept of existence. Each human being, whether or not he realizes it, has been created by God to know, love and serve Him in this life as a member of His Catholic Church and then be ever ready to face Him at the Particular Judgment so that he can share eternal life and happiness in the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven. No one has the “liberty” of declaring a preborn child to a disposable object who can be eliminated by arbitrary whims of mere vessels of clay. The definition of “one’s own concept of existence” is the essence of the New Age movement. It is diabolical.
  5. As noted before, the slaughter of preborn children is not a matter of “women’s health,” it is willful murder.
  6. These facts are not “imponderables,” and it only a basketful of deplorable legal positivists could assert such a thing and expect to be taken seriously.
  7. It is laughable beyond the hypocritical for a man, John Glover Roberts, who is a supreme judicial legislator, as he has proved time and time again, to say that rendering a decision on matters about which no human being is free to argue and “decide” is judicial legislation. The Supreme Legislator Himself, Christ the King, has spoken. Case closed.

You know who to thank for John Glover Roberts, don’t you?

Of course, you do.

George Walker Bush, that’s who.

Sure Pappy Bush gave us two contraries, David Souter and Clarence Thomas, and Bush the Lesser gave us two contraries, John Glover Roberts and Samuel Alito. Ronald Wilson Reagan gave us the fully pro-abort Sandra Day O’Connor, the “originalist” who said that state legislatures were free to permit, restrict or prohibit abortion as they see fit as the constitution, in his view, was “silent” on the matter, Antonin Scalia, and the man who saved Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who just happened to have written the Court’s majority opinion in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, June 26, 2016.

Richard Milhous Nixon?

He gave us three clunkers, Warren Burger, Harry Blackman, the author of the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, and Lewis Powell, each of whom joined William O. Douglas, William Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall in the Roe decision. Nixon also gave us one of the two dissenters in Roe, William Hubbs Rehnquist.

Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr./Leslie Lynch King, Jr.?

His one and only nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America was John Paul Stevens, who proved quite worthy of sitting in the same seat that had been occupied by William O. Douglas for thirty-six years. Stevens himself was on the Court for nearly thirty-four years until he retired after the Court term ending in 2009 to provide a vacancy for Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to fill.

Here is a reminder of what Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote about conservatives and progressives ninety-six years ago:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types—the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton, London Illustrated Review, April 24, 1924.)

Although Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s courageous dissenting opinion June Medical Services v. Russo stated clearly that the Supreme Court of the United States of America had invented a constitutional “right to privacy” out of whole cloth in Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, which then became the basis for Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, and was very correct to state that the “right” to abortion was nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States of America, even he could not bring himself to mention that God’s eternal law is above any human document, including the Constitution itself. Such are the straitjackets into which men must be fitted when in a system of pure naturalism and majoritarian sentimentality. Moreover, much like his late friend, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas believes that state legislatures can permit, restrict or prohibit abortion as they see fit:

But today’s decision is wrong for a far simpler reason: The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the “legal fiction” of substantive due process, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone(June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.)

In other words, as I have tried to explain repeatedly on this site—and long before that in my teaching career, when running for office on the Right to Life Party line in the State of New York, and in the pages of The Wanderer and then The Remnant, a reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, something that will never happen, would not end surgical baby-killing on demand in this country as even the “conservative” justices believe that the states are free to act as they see fit, and several states already have “trigger laws” to make sure that baby-killing-on-demand can continue unfettered and unrestricted.


The binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment are not silly putty to be shaped at the will of the “people” in a plebiscite or at the pleasure of their elected representatives. The civil state hath not the authority from God to do such a thing. However, Justice Thomas, no matter his accurate, concise and brilliant description of how the Supreme Court of the United States of America invented the “right to privacy” that resulted in the decisions in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, a substantial part of which is appended below, concedes a “right to the states” that they do not possess.

“Stopgap” measures based on the “lowest common” naturalistic denominator will always collapse as they are built on the quicksand of naturalism and thus consist of internal contradictions and inconsistencies that render its objectives merely symbolic and rhetorical in nature.

Silvio Cardinal Antoniano explained over four hundred fifty years ago that things repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity can never be the foundation of temporal order:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.) 

It is indeed impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquility by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. To enshrine willful murder as a “constitutional right” is to bring down the wrath of God upon men and their nations, and it is not for nothing that it appears the Red Chinese are about launch Plandemic II: The Sequel by means of a “new and improved” swine flu (see New Swine Flu in Red China). Anyone thinks that the current hysteria over the Chinese/China/Wuhan/Covid-19/Coronavirus is not a chastisement from God is not thinking clearly as level of statism and social control is going to get worse and worse in the future.

There is simply no naturalistic, secularistic, religiously indifferentist, nondenominational, interdenominational means to end this madness. Men and their nations must be convert to the true Faith, something that is made much harder now than in the past because the representatives of what most people think is the Catholic Church even though it is her counterfeit ape want to convert no one to Catholicism while doing all they can to heap insults and bitter invectives at Catholics who try, despite their own sins and failings, to keep the Faith whole and entire in their own lives and try to exhort others to convert.

The month of June, the month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, ended at 11:59:59 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 2020, the Commemoration of Saint Paul. It is always time, however, to enfold ourselves in the tender mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Every extra moment we spend before the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament and every extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary that we pray will help us to be more and more conformed to the likeness of Our Divine Redeemer, Who permitted His own Most Sacred Heart to be wounded by our sins during His Passion and Death at the same time He permitted our sins to pierce His Blessed Mother's Immaculate Heart with the Fourth through the Seventh Swords of Sorrow.

We must always remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to live and thus to sanctify and to save our immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. The graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for us to handle whatever crosses—personal, social and ecclesiastical—that we are asked to carry. We must give thanks to God at all times for each of our crosses as we seek to serve Him through Our Lady in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

In this month of July, the month of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, which poured forth from His Most Sacred Heart, may we enfold ourselves more and more into the loving care of Our Lady, from Whom Our Lord received His own Most Precious Blood, and to be ever reliant upon and confident in—but never presumptuous of—her abiding help for us now, and at the hour of our death.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.


Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Processus and Martinian, pray for us.


An Excerpt From Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’s Dissenting Opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo

The Court first conceived a free-floating constitutional right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965). In that case, the Court declared unconstitutional a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, finding that it violated a married couple’s “right of privacy.” Id., at 486. The Court explained that this right could be found in the “penumbras” of five different Amendments to the Constitution—the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth. Id., at 484. Rather than explain what free speech or the quartering of troops had to do with contraception, the Court simply declared that these rights had created “zones of privacy” with Cite as: 591 U. S. ____ (2020) 15 THOMAS, J., dissenting their “penumbras,” which were “formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Ibid. This reasoning is as mystifying as it is baseless.

As Justice Black observed in his dissent, this general “right of privacy” was never before considered a constitutional guarantee protecting citizens from governmental intrusion. Id., at 508–510. Rather, the concept was one of tort law, championed by Samuel Warren and the future Justice Louis Brandeis in their 1890 Harvard Law Review article entitled, “The Right to Privacy.” 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193. Over 20 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, Warren and Brandeis were among the first to advocate for this privacy right in the context of tort relief for those whose personal information and private affairs were exploited by others. Id., at 193, 195–196, 214–220. By “exalting a phrase . . . used in discussing grounds for tort relief, to the level of a constitutional rule,” the Court arrogated to itself the “power to invalidate any legislative act which [it] find[s] irrational, unreasonable[,] or offensive” as an impermissible “interfere[nce] with ‘privacy.’” Griswold, supra, at 510, n. 1, 511 (Black, J., dissenting).

Just eight years later, the Court utilized its newfound power in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). There, the Court struck down a Texas law restricting abortion as a violation of a woman’s constitutional “right of privacy,” which it grounded in the “concept of personal liberty” purportedly protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 153. The Court began its legal analysis by openly acknowledging that the Constitution’s text does not “mention any right of privacy.” Id., at 152. The Court nevertheless concluded that it need not bother with our founding document’s text, because the Court’s prior decisions—chief among them Griswold—had already divined such a right from constitutional penumbras. Roe, 410 U. S., 16 JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO THOMAS, J., dissenting at 152. Without any legal explanation, the Court simply concluded that this unwritten right to privacy was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s [abortion] decision.” Id., at 153.

Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe suggests that the Due Process Clause’s reference to “liberty” could provide a textual basis for its novel privacy right. Ibid. But that Clause does not guarantee liberty qua liberty. Rather, it expressly contemplates the deprivation of liberty and requires only that such deprivations occur through “due process of law.” Amdt. 14, §1. As I have previously explained, there is “‘considerable historical evidence support[ing] the position that “due process of law” was [originally understood as] a separation-of-powers concept . . . forbidding only deprivations not authorized by legislation or common law.’” Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 623 (2015) (opinion concurring in judgment) (quoting D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years 1789–1888, p. 272 (1985)). Others claim that the original understanding of this Clause requires that “statutes that purported to empower the other branches to deprive persons of rights without adequate procedural guarantees [be] subject to judicial review.” Chapman & McConnell, Due Process as Separation of Powers, 121 Yale L. J. 1672, 1679 (2012). But, whatever the precise requirements of the Due Process Clause, “the notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 811 (opinion of THOMAS, J.) (June Medical Services v. Russo, June 29, 2020.)