By DEXTER DUGGAN
Long before powerful officials in the nation’s capital worried about COVID-19, a political disease known as Potomac Fever imperiled liberty and independence. It was a virus caught by living along the banks of the river that goes through Washington, D.C., making its victims want to get in the swim of backscratching, power plays, falsehoods, sycophancy and other ills.
The tide grew worse and overflowed its banks so the mere Potomac was replaced by an ever-growing swamp whose quicksands and seductions threatened the survival of the country.
The moral and religious populace that the Founders had judged necessary for the proper conduct of a healthy nation was under increasing threat by weird creatures rising up through the slimy waters to bellow that they represented the true future of the United States, and that anyone who resisted must commit suicide by drowning or at least just shut up and slide aside.
If anyone dared challenge these commands, the twisted, dripping creatures would reach into their waterproof valises and produce pounds of published legal gobbledygook commanding all sorts of debility.
You thought certain basic laws and standards and understandings were beyond doubt, but here were their new court rulings explaining why the sun must rise in the north every day except Tuesday, when it mustn’t rise at all, and that gravity has been outlawed, and that water boils at 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
And if that’s not enough for you, here are recent fantasyland court decisions that federal anti-discrimination laws require that females must go into whatever public lavatory they think pleases them, and males must play on the sports team of whichever gender they take a fancy to competing with.
If you thought phony scientific theories of the past were pretty bad that were dressed up with credentialism, throat-clearing, and long white robes, now we have lawsuits assaulting the very basis of human nature by mentally troubled people determined that they must rule over and shame the sane.
Living in the fetid swamp doesn’t mean draining it. It means draining away every drop of healthy reason and common sense that might dilute swamp disease.
The Federalist website posted an article on June 25 about the reemergence of Washington, D.C., high society with the decline of COVID-19 — all the partying, fancy eating, self-indulgence, excessive self-regard and ogling each other that should fill the rest of this nation’s people with loathing.
It was headlined, “The New York Times Extols the Return of the D.C. Swamp Society.”
For decades conservatives thought that if they simply could complete the arduous task of having constitutionalist judges on the bench, crowned by a constitutionalist U.S. Supreme Court, the days would have passed of prejudiced jurists gulping from the swamp and mandating their own left-wing political views instead of following the law.
This, of course, had to be accomplished by electing a Constitution-friendly president to nominate the judges.
One of the glaring bad examples of impermissible judicial legislating was nearly a half-century ago, when the High Court simply invented the mandate of nationwide permissive abortion with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
Six years ago the Court still was at it, purporting to discover the hitherto-unknown constitutional right of “same-sex marriage” as put forth in Obergefell v. Hodges.
In 2020, Donald Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch showed he could slurp from the swamp with the worst of them with his surprise majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, claiming that a ban on sex discrimination extended to homosexuals and transgenders through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — even though the Congress that passed the act intended nothing of the sort.
You may recall that one of the cases here involved a male worker at a funeral home who planned to dress as a woman. Plainly, grieving families deserved enough respect for their sensitivities that they shouldn’t have to make arrangements with a male fancying to be female. But the only sensitivities that count are those of the disordered, of course.
The issue at hand isn’t whether a transsexual should starve to death rather than be served a hamburger at a lunch counter. It’s whether this serious sexual disorientation should be imposed on society as the norm or preference.
Then, on June 28, in another jackbooted step to enforcing the immorality revolution, the High Court declined to review a federal appeals-court decision that affirmed the right of a female who thinks she’s a male to use a males’ public-school lavatory. This depravity, too, was laughably prettified in the language of civil rights in Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board.
The Gloucester County, Va., School Board had attempted to please everyone by allowing the young lady to use a private lavatory, but she felt entitled to enforce her personal preferences on everyone else.
LifeSiteNews.com posted on June 28: “Conservatives argue that forcing children and teens to share intimate facilities with members of the opposite sex violates their privacy rights, subjects them to needless emotional stress, and gives potential male predators a viable pretext to enter female bathrooms or lockers.”
But what are such vital considerations alongside the twisted revolution that cognitively impaired bad Catholic Joe Biden jumps up and down cheering for — if he manages to have the energy — and thrusting into federal requirements?
Tellingly, Justice Gorsuch in Bostock just last year said his ruling wouldn’t affect bathroom usage. Yet when the federal court in Grimm used Bostock to provide a bathroom justification, Gorsuch was mute.
On June 28 commentator Tyler O’Neil posted at the PJ Media website that in Bostock, Gorsuch wrote, “Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind” — even though Judge Henry F. Floyd went on to cite Bostock in ruling for Grimm.
O’Neil wrote: “Gorsuch defended his Orwellian redefinition of language in Bostock by assuring Americans that this ruling did not apply to the bathroom issue, but when the Supreme Court had the chance to correct the record on that very issue, the Court let Floyd’s misinterpretation of Bostock stand” on June 28.
A Travesty Of Justice
National conservative commentator Quin Hillyer told The Wanderer on June 29: “For years and years conservatives have been frustrated not just by the way the John Roberts-led Supreme Court finds inventive new ways to issue the narrowest decisions possible rather than addressing the larger constitutional questions, but also by how it so often refuses in the first place even to hear cases involving major constitutional questions.
“Even after former president Trump secured three new supposedly conservative appointments to the court, the trend continues,” Hillyer said. “The refusal to hear the Virginia transgender case is yet another example of this — and the refusal is a travesty of justice.”
Northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson told The Wanderer on June 29: “This is another example of the insanity permeating our society today. Gavin Grimm is anatomically a female yet claims to be a male and presents as such. In high school, Gavin wanted to use the male bathroom, but the school said no. A federal lawsuit was filed and the courts ruled in his favor.
“The ACLU represented Grimm as his court battles continued for seven years until June 28, when the Supreme Court refused to get involved,” she said. “Was it cowardice on the part of the High Court because of the current favoritism for such sexual issues, or are our justices showing their real politics — liberal to the core? Grimm, now 22, said he’s ‘honored to have been part of this victory.’ See — it is a war.”
Trump had the rare opportunity to name not one or two but three justices in just one four-year presidential term, supposedly strengthening the Court into a 6-3 conservative majority, but left-wing observers are commenting these days on the Court’s pleasantly surprising behavior.
With each nomination — Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, then Amy Coney Barrett just last year, of whom two are Catholics — conservatives were assured that the Court finally was being returned to constitutionalism. But the Potomac swamp — those forces and pressures and milieu — still seemed capable of overcoming everything else.
When interviewer David Brody recently asked Trump about the three, Trump replied, “I was disappointed, and that’s the way it goes. Very disappointed, I fought very hard for them. But I was very disappointed with a number of their rulings.”
In an article posted June 29 at the Just the News website, reporter Sophie Mann noted conservatives’ dissolving expectations. One factor, she suggested, was Chief Justice John Roberts trying to defuse Democrat threats to pack the Court by reassuring the Democrats with their kind of decisions, “and it appears that the court’s newest members are on board with his approach.”
Mann wrote: “The expectation for this term ‘was a bunch of divided decisions with the three Democratic appointees getting the short end of the stick,’ Lee Epstein, a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, recently told The New York Times. ‘So far that prediction is way off the mark. In divided cases, the Trump appointees have moved the court to the left. If anyone got the short end of the stick, it’s this year’s most conservative justice, Alito’.”
If that’s accurate, it seems to come back to the fact that left-wing dominance at major institutions frightens even the mighty Supreme Court more than the restless conservative majority in the U.S. How much longer are conservatives going to defer to a corrupt establishment determined to grind this nation under its caviar-stained heel?
Half-demented Biden suits this establishment just fine, but Trump’s power to fight it was what motivated the ferocious attacks against him on every front even while Republicans’ approval of him soared.
Looking at the disappointing tilt of the Court, conservative commentator Josh Hammer posted at the New York Post on June 25: “It’s time for a reckoning. The conservative legal movement needs to soberly confront its shortcomings.
“Some of those shortcomings are structural, such as an undue emphasis on nominating and promoting libertarian-leaning jurists who are passionate about reining in the administrative state but reluctant to defiantly wade into dreaded ‘cultural issues’,” Hammer said.
“And some of those shortcomings are methodological — namely, the widespread adoption of a blinkered positivist and historicist originalist jurisprudence to the exclusion of a more substantively conservative and natural-law-informed jurisprudence,” he said.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress