Intemperate Minds and the Comrades on the Supreme Court

I was driving back to the hotel from work via the TransCanada Highway (Vancouver is spectacular by the way), I was thinking about the left’s reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision…and other decisions that didn’t go their way.

Isn’t it remarkable how they act like immature, spoiled children when they don’t get their way? They lash out, they threaten and then they pout. I wrote earlier in a FasceBook post that Edmund Burke had said that a person with an intemperate mind could never be free and that thought continues to resonate in my brain.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Unfortunately for us, men of intemperate minds have been elected to rule over us. It is like we culled the rejects from the American Idol tryouts and used them to populate Plato’s Council of Guardians.

Isn’t it remarkable that a decision supporting actual freedom of choice – not the “have someone else pay for what I want” sort of “freedom” of choice has, in their minds, unimaginable permutations and combinations of doom while a decision in their favor doesn’t cause those same ripples?

The intellectual dishonesty, the simple lack of capacity for rational thought and the overt expressions of unfocused anger are yet additional examples of an immature and intemperate mind. I don’t remember the right flaking out like this when the mandate decision didn’t go our way – there was a little bump but pretty much everybody started digging in to find another chink in the Obamacare armor.

In all fairness, there were those rumors that Obama had pictures of John Roberts in compromising positions with medium sized farm animals but that seemed to pass pretty quickly.

Since many of the left are not religious or are willing to abrogate or ignore religious tenets and are willing to shred the Constitution to get what they want, you have to wonder if most of this isn’t economic – that it is a continuation of the Marxist offensive thrust to bring down wealth and private property. You have to assume that hey define freedom as the ability to have anything one wants at any time without consequence while someone else pays. Their state of freedom is defined as a unlimited gift card to life given to you by government.

Ginsburg wrote a dissent that turned into a diatribe about two paragraphs in and rambled on for 35 pages. The lefties are calling it “scathing” – I’m not quite that sold – after reading it, I would use the terms “disconnected” and “hyperbolic” and “fanciful”. Those are polite ways to say that she really wanders off into the weeds on this one, almost to the point of claiming that this ruling has the same result as the “butterfly effect”. You know that one – the theory that when a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon, it causes cyclones in Malaysia.

The frenetic rants by the left indicate just how much they have invested in totalitarian desires. They really, really love government and any reduction in government scope or power really, really messes with their pea-pickin’ little schizophrenic minds. They can actually say that when companies refuse to pay for 4 out of 20 forms of contraception that this equates to the owners of the company telling women what they can do with their own bodies while at the same time having absolutely no problem with a government telling companies (many owned by women) what they can and cannot do.

They are essentially saying that the companies have no right to use their own property (their money) unless the government approves that specific use…and that is a fundamentally Marxist ideal, that there is no private property, only that what we own in common. Marx said that:

“The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

It might be different if there were no/limited access to contraception (other than the free version – abstinence) – but there is common access everywhere, even Plan B was ordered to be sold over the counter to girls of any age without parental consent or notification.

At the end of the day, we come back to their major objection – that 16 of 20 free contraceptive types was simply not enough because women would have to pay for the other 4 out of pocket if they chose them…so we are right back to the economic aspect of the argument. The loudest screamers about this ruling are simply the useful idiots and fellow travelers of our time.

I wonder of Ruth Bader Ginsburg even knows that she is one of Marx’s foot soldiers?

5 thoughts on “Intemperate Minds and the Comrades on the Supreme Court

  1. “In all fairness, there were those rumors that Obama had pictures of John Roberts in compromising positions with medium sized farm animals but that seemed to pass pretty quickly.”

    Utah: guess we can replaced that thought with visions of Sen Thad.

  2. When I pointed that out to a FBer, she told me that this had nothing to do with the govt.; it was the fault of a private company putting themselves between a doctor and a patient. I guess I should explain to her a little on the rules and regs of the ACA.

    As far as SCOTUS’ ruling, the one thing that I believe could become an issue is this “closely-held” term for corporations. What the hello does that even mean?

    • As a matter of law, it is meaningless. It is a term of art that was included as a sop to the leftist members of the court who hate corporations and didn’t want their dinner party guests thinking that the Koch brothers were going to decide what color panties you would be wearing tomorrow. The overall point is that you don’t lose your individual rights the minute you hire someone or get together with other people to form a business enterprise.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s