Happy belated birthday, Eric Blair — the dystopian world you conjured is still here year after year





“The centuries of capitalism were held to have produced nothing of any value. One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets — anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered.”

— “Nineteen Eighty-four”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve taken to placing a little sticky note over the camera atop my desktop computer. If former FBI Director James Comey and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg do it, so will I. Big and Little Brothers may be watching.

Happy belated 119th birthday, Eric Blair.

On June 25 in 1903, Eric Blair was born in India. This is not the year to overlook this propitious event, because this is the year that gave us the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board and its Russian hoax embracing director Nina Jankowicz.

Under the pen name George Orwell, Blair penned the novel “Nineteen Eighty-four.”

After a hailstorm of ridicule, much of it comparing the new DHS board to Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and Big Brother, after three weeks the disinformation board was shelved. Purpose served.

Eric Blair as six weeks old

When Orwell wrote “Nineteen Eighty-four” he wasn’t forecasting a particular date, he simply transposed the last two digits in 1948, the year in which he wrote much of the book. Though a life-long socialist he despised the totalitarian and despotic nature of communism, fascism and Nazism.

He added to the lexicon: Big Brother, thoughtcrime, newspeak, doublethink, Room 101, as well as the painted slogans: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

In “Nineteen Eighty-four” the warring nations kept changing enemies, sort of like today.

If you don’t think freedom is slavery, consider the “Life of Julia” — the Obama campaign video that showed a woman relying on government handouts from cradle to retirement. Julia, by the way, was the girlfriend of Winston Smith, the main character in “Nineteen Eighty-four.”

Ignorance is definitely strength, not for us but for politicians who the ignorant keep electing.

As for newspeak and doublethink, consider the language of the Obama and Trump and Biden administrations. Obama said we were not fighting a war against terrorists but trying to prevent man-caused disasters. His Defense Department (They don’t call it the War Department anymore.) sent out a memo saying: “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’” And a man standing on a table, firing a gun, shouting Allahu Akbar is merely workplace violence.

Trump was going to attack Iran for downing our drone, then the called it off. He was going to have ICE round-up immigrants who had been ordered deported, then he delayed it. He was going to impose tariffs, then he did not. During the election campaign he took 141 policy positions on 23 issues over the course of 510 days. He changed stances on immigration, ObamaCare, entitlement programs, gay rights, the Middle East and so much more.

Biden’s bureaucrats’ budget language refers to “birthing people,” not mothers.

Not to be outdone, the quacks at the Nevada Legislature actually passed AB287, which declares that on public documents the term mother is to be replaced with “person giving birth” and father with “other parent.” The governor signed it and there was no news coverage of the event.

The Federal Reserve a year ago put out a memo instructing staff to use bias-free language. The memo lists terms like “Founding Fathers” and “manmade” as well as the pronouns he and she as offensive.

Then there was the news media blackout of all the Hunter Biden monetary shakedowns, obscene photos and racial slurs — never mind the social media banning of a former president and many others.

Trump was called a xenophobe for suggesting the COVID-19 virus came from a Wuhan lab, but now that is widely accepted as possible.

Orwell wrote: “‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'”

Recently a law professor suggested editing from classroom teachings the details of the Dred Scott case in which the Supreme Court ruled a Black man could not file suit in court because he was not a citizen. The prof wants to omit language “so gratuitously insulting and demeaning.” He said assigning the case forces students “to relive the humiliation of [Chief Justice Roger] Taney’s language as evidence of his doctrine of white supremacy.”

How can there be any thoughtcrime if we are not allowed to use certain words or study history? People aren’t in the country illegally, they are merely undocumented. And this too changes over time. Once the word negro was the preferred and the politically correct term, but now it is a slur.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” Orwell wrote in “Nineteen Eighty-four.” “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

Today’s cancel culture is Big Brother incarnate.

Statues are being torn down. Books are banned. Military bases are renamed. Social media posts are censored. Speech is deemed the same as violence. Silence is also violence. But violence is free speech. Any thought outside the strictly proscribed is a crime. Thoughtcrime literally.

The editorial page editor of The New York Times was ousted after fellow staffers demanded his scalp for having the audacity to publish an op-ed by a U.S. senator calling for sending troops to quell rioting. (It now has a lengthy editors’ note atop it online disavowing much of the op-ed’s content.) The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer was forced to resign for daring to publish an opinion piece under the headline ”Buildings Matter, Too.”

When President Trump tweeted, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts …” Twitter hid it behind a warning label because it “glorifies violence.”

Movies and television shows are being canceled lest they offend the snowflakes. Classic children’s books are being ripped from the library shelves for being insensitive.

Bowing to racial sensitivity, the Associated Press changed its stylebook to call for the capitalization of the “b” in the term Black when referring to people in a racial, ethnic or cultural context. It was reasoned that lowercase black is a color, not a person. But the AP still uses a lowercase “w” for white, whether a color or a person. Affirmative action run amok?

Back in 1975, David Goodman wrote in The Futurist magazine that 100 of 137 Orwell predictions in “Nineteen Eighty-four” had come true. With the advance of computer surveillance and drones, how many more have come true?

In 1983, while working as the city editor of the Shreveport Journal, I penned a soft feature tied to the 35th anniversary of the original writing of Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

I observed in that piece that Orwell’s book was about a totalitarian dystopia in which BIG BROTHER WAS WATCHING YOU, suggesting this was like the infrared camera equipped drones or huge network of cybersnooping computers, long before the NSA revelations. 

“George Orwell respected language and railed against its abuse,” I wrote in 1983. “He was particularly offended by the propaganda — some of which he helped to write for the BBC in World War II. He saw firsthand the way the press was tricked and subverted for political purposes in the Spanish Civil War. Battles that never happened. Heroes who became traitors.”

In another piece posted here in 2013, I asked whether Orwell was a satirist or a prophet.

Walter Cronkite in a foreword to the 1983 paperback edition of “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” claimed the book has failed as prophecy only because it has served so well as a warning — a warning against manipulation and power grabbing and the loss of privacy in the name of state security.

And Cronkite couldn’t resist adding: “1984 may not arrive on time, but there’s always 1985.”

Orwell himself called his book a satire and took pains to correct those who saw it merely as a denunciation of socialism.

In a letter written shortly after the publication of the book, Orwell wrote, “My novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’ is not intended as an attack on socialism, or on the British Labour party, but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable, and which have already been partly realized in Communism and fascism.

“I do not believe that the kind of society I describe will arrive, but I believe (allowing, of course, for the fact that the book is a satire) that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences. The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”

A Newsweek article in 2018 asked the question: “Is Trump nudging America toward corrupt authoritarianism?” Isn’t corrupt authoritarianism redundant?

Back in 2008, when the Las Vegas Review-Journal launched its blogging section online, I engaged in a bit of self-indulgent navel gazing in a column trying to explain why. I leaned on Orwell like a crutch.

I explained that I and other newspaper scriveners were joining the lowing herds browsing the ether — otherwise known as bloggers, those free-range creatures who mostly chew up the intellectual property of others and spit out their cuds online.

In an effort to find a rationale for this otherwise irrational exercise I grabbed Orwell’s “Why I Write” essay from 1946, in which he lists various reasons for writing.

First is sheer egoism: “Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc.,” Orwell explains. “It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. … Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.”

I think that was both a salute and a sully to the profession of journalism.

The second rationale, according to Orwell, is aesthetic enthusiasm: “Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. …” Orwell explains. “Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.”

Third is historical impulse: “Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”

Finally, and probably most importantly, political purpose: “Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.”

Orwell wrote this shortly after he penned “Animal Farm,” but two years before “Nineteen Eighty-four.” He said “Animal Farm” was his first conscious effort “to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole.”

Orwell wrote against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.

Ayn Rand wrote for free-market capitalism.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote for libertarianism.

Others espouse various “isms” and objective journalism attempts to eschew them, not always successfully.

So, what moves one to write?

As our master Orwell said, “All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a mystery.”

Everybody loves to unravel a good mystery, right?

Happy birthday, Eric Blair.

A version of this blog has been posted annually for several years.

41 comments on “Happy belated birthday, Eric Blair — the dystopian world you conjured is still here year after year

  1. Bill says:

    Thanks. I have long felt that 1984 and Animal Farm should be required treading, particularly at this time when there is so much reaction but little discussion of the decisions of the SCOTUS regarding guns, abortion and freedom of religion.

  2. NYPete says:

    You should have mentioned is “Politics and the English Language,” one of the essential essays of the 20th Century.

  3. NYPete says:

    “[M]odern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.”

  4. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of Freedom of Religion maybe one of the folks on the right can justify this or possibly point out the provision in the Constitution where she’s getting her support?

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’

  5. Athos says:

    Anny-mous, do you believe the framers of the Constitution were guided by Christian principles, and English law?

    Do you agree or disagree with John Adams that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”?

    Would we have less rancor if more people believed in Christian principles (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you…..etc etc)?

    BTW, I’ve always found it odd that the man that nailed the failure of socialism (Animal Farm) was indeed, a socialist!

  6. NYPete says:

    Certainly is odd, I agree. Perhaps, just perhaps, Orwell, as a committed socialist, thought that what he was describing in “1984” was not socialism.

  7. NYPete says:

    Recommend you read his essay “The Lion and the Unicorn”.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Athos:

    “How stupid can you be”

    was never intended to be a personal challenge to you.

  9. Athos says:

    And I love you, too, anny. I guess John Adams didn’t do it for you, did he? Why is it when leftist are presented points of an argument, they attack the person and not the argument? It’s almost like “shut up” is their only line of defense.

    petey, maybe Orwell was complaining about his socialist buddies and how it wasn’t working out (due to the nature of man and socialism NEVER working out)? And I’ll put “The Lion and the Unicorn” on my reading list, but right now I’m finishing up Jack Reacher “Better Off Dead”

  10. Bill says:

    Judeo/Christian principles Athos. not just Christian principles. I don’t believe Jefferson’s letter was stupid but there is a discussion out there about as to whether or not there is or should be an absolute wall between God (the 3 main religions, Christians, Muslims and Jews all have the same one) and the State. And I would add several more books to the list of required reading but it is hard to get anyone to read a book these days.

  11. NYPete says:

    Oh great. A “discussion” about whether we should live in a theocracy.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Still waiting for someone to justify republican Boebert saying that a church is supposed to direct the government.

    Alternatively, one of them could condemn what she said as at least un-American.

  13. Athos says:

    Bill, you are quite right! Judeo-Christian principles not only guided our country, but most of Europe and gave us the superior civilization that we have come to enjoy. I’m not too sure the Mohammed Muslims have the same God as the Jews and the Christians, but that’s a discussion for another time, yes? And I think Jefferson’s letter was totally misinterpreted to fit the narrative of the time…and, of course, was used in the Emerson vs The Board of Education in 1947 and more famously in 1963 to drive God out our schools (remember Madalyn Murray O’Hair?) How did that work out, anyway?

    As to the “church is supposed to direct the government.” argument. Are you too young to remember the “Moral Majority” and the “Religious New Right” of the 80s, anny? Maybe what our society needs right now is a little “good old fashion religion”. Can’t do any worse than this clueless bunch we have leading us now!

  14. Bill says:

    .
    According to the A Concise Encyclopedia of Christianity by Geoffrey Parrinder (Oneworld Publications 1998), Abraham is a great Hebrew patriarch and is considered the common spiritual father of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Paul wrote of all those who have faith being children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). And yes, I remember the well, the Reverend Falwell and the moral majority. Religion that doesn’t hurt others is find. But I cannot forgive the excesses of the ages where inhumanity was perpetrated in the name of religion. I for one believe that religion, like most things, should be taken in moderation.

  15. Anonymous says:

    So not one member of our little group, dominated as it is by folks on the right, is willing to condemn or agree with one of their own, who says that our government should be directed by the church.

    Cowards.

  16. Boebert is not conservative.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Well I recall folks who identify themselves as conservatives suggesting that all Muslims must condemn the 911 attacks (or any other attack committed by self professed members of that religion) even while those Muslims said that those people were not true members of that religion and that if they didn’t, this must mean that they support the actions of those terrorists.

    And you can see here between Athos and Bill that neither one of them condemned what she said or even disagreed with it, in fact, I could easily argue that they seem to be supporting what she said.

  18. Ignoring quacks is not a sign of endorsement.

  19. Bill says:

    Well, Anon, if it makes you feel better, I will disagree with what Ms. Goedert reportedly said, although I didn’t take the time to see what the context might have been.

    I consider myself to be somewhat conservative politically but I don’t think that anyone who makes a statements like that attributed to her should be called a “conservative” simply based on the statement she allegedly made.

    To me, it is a radical statement and while I disagree with her view I will not “condemn” her or her statement because she has a total right to hold her belief and make that statement, no matter how much I might disagree with it.

    The condemnation that you demand is so much like what we are seeing from the Fascist Woke crowd who insist that anyone not endorsing their “Newspeak” is to be labelled and condemned. No discussion, just ad personal attacks.

    Have a nice day and a great and joyous celebration of the 4th of July, the day celebrating the birth of this great Nation, whose stated goals we constantly strive to perfect.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Well Bill that’s quite a tough stance there.

    I wonder whether you’d feel the same if it was one of those “Islamics” saying that they thought that their church should be directing this government or whether you’d “disagree” but not condemn them because, as we all know, that would be…wrong?

    And in case you wanted to discuss this, please join in because I’m all for a good hearty discussion.

    I’ll start here and you pick the part you want to discuss

    No American politician, and no American, should ever think, much less say, that the church should be directing the American government.

    Hopefully that will get us started.

  21. Anonymous says:

    And for Thomas, I’m glad you say that, and I hope that you believe it so that the next time some individual says something, you don’t lump their supposed fellows in with them….

  22. Bill says:

    Anon. I don;t believe in condemning people for most speech and almost never thought.

    People can be wrong, can be mistaken, dishonest and ignorant, but they are entitled to their thoughts and words for the most part. That will hopefully continue in the United States and that is why I do condemn the Fascist Woke Crowd that would fully control speeech and thought and take away from us the rights of free thought and free speech.

  23. Athos says:

    Actually, anny, you are the reason Donald Trump swept into power and was President for 4 glorious years! I, for one, have not read or even heard of Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposal about ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’, and I’m quite the avid reader and purveyor of conservative news! Could she possibly be someone like Cassidy Hutchinson, who gave false testimony at the Jan. 6 hearing? Or Adam Shifty Shift that repeated over and over again about having the goods on Trump and the Russian hoax? And what a piece of clever misdirection to compare what she allegedly said to calling out Muslims on 9/11!

    Your type (leftist nihilist) try repeatedly to shame conservatives with your phony baloney claims of hypocrisy! And because we (on the right) DO have principles, morals and Higher standards, you have been able to get us to shut up…..Until that rude, brash, braggart over exaggerator came down the escalator and threw his hat into the ring 7 years ago! So, thank you for being too clever by half, and totally incompetent to run even a baby formula factory!

    Having your woke lame ideas of “green power” and “transgender affirming procedures” and racist ideology returning us to the days of segregation, and good old fashion shake-down nepotism/corruption being shown to the entire country for all to see, maybe worth the hopeless damage Brandon & Co are doing to our country, (if only we can get rid of your poisonous ideologies for at least a season!)

    Discus that, anny baby! (And you still haven’t refuted John Adams’ take on our Constitution, Or doesn’t that count as “discussion”?)

  24. Anonymous says:

    Bill at least, and perhaps at most, you get credit for “disagreeing” with the republican representative from Colorado because its tough to even get that from folks on the right (as you can see from the rather lengthy comment from the guy who followed you)

    But I wonder why, in the face of a comment from an actual legislator, charged with protecting the Constitution which rather clearly FORBIDES the church from directing the government, you would choose to condemn what you call “the fascist woke crowd” (whatever the heck that means) who you claim “would” “fully control speech and thought” and…the rest when what you have here is an actual representative of the people of this country, contending that our government should be directed by the church?

    How is that?

  25. Bill says:

    Well, Anon, I actually agree with a lot that Athos has to say to you,

    I do object to your attempt to blow what some obscure Republican Legislator from Colorado may have said into a call for everyone to denounce and her as being pretty lame.

    You seem to hate anyone you label as conservative and you do seem to personally attack those who disagree with you.

    \I personally disagree with what the Legislator reportedly said but it does not rise to the level of meriting condemnation. I choose not to agree with her but I I do not choose to censure, criticize, castigate, attack, or denounce her for having a wrong opinion.

  26. Anonymous says:

    But you even though you have an identified individual who made this comment, you’d choose to condemn instead some unidentified “woke” individual who I presume is on the left (please correct me if instead you meant a conservative) who uttered some unknown comment.

    Agree with your fellow poster from the right or not, I only asked if someone from the right could justify what she said or condemn it and neither of you did either of those things although you at least and at most “disagreed” with it and the other poster didn’t even do that.

  27. Bill says:

    It is the entire WOKE movement that offends me.

    It is basically a Fascist and sadly a racist movement.

    Their aim is never discussion just condemnation.

    They seek suppression not persuasion.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Well condemning some unidentified, undefined “movement” which hasn’t said anything, but merely “disagreeing” with an elected representative who has an actual voice in the United States Congress, but who asserts that this country needs to be directed by the church seems…a misplaced use of emotion.

    I’m wondering if you might be troubled to provide some actual definition of “woke” so that we may know what you find worth condemning because clearly, an elected representative saying that a church needs to direct the Government isn’t enough.

    And just as an aside, do you believe that a church, put in charge of directing the government by the republican representative, would seek persuasion rather than suppression?

  29. Athos says:

    Oh, anny, you are SOOOO clever, aren’t you? You can’t answer John Adams’ statement about for whom our Constitution is designed. Crickets! And I have yet to see you post a link so we can judge for ourselves what the good lady from Colorado actually said! Kind of reminds me of that SUPER WOKE show trial going on in Pelousy’s House!
    No representation from the Republican leadership, no cross examination, no witnesses to be called from the right. (Like “All three individuals whom Hutchinson cited — the two Secret Service agents and Ornato —who are now denying the veracity of her claims” https://americanwirenews.com/secret-service-agents-driver-in-hutchinson-story-prepared-to-testify-that-it-never-happened-report/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

    Woke is telling parents they don’t have the right to raise their own children, but children have the right to mutilate their bodies as young as 14 years old. Woke is telling the American people that the “systemic racism” is so pervasive the only way to combat it is with segregation, and reparations. And tell me, how’s Obama’s star political standard bearer, Andrew Gillum doing these days, eh?

    Woke is saying we fought The Revolutionary War not to gain our freedom from England but to keep our slaves enslaved! And pay no attention to the damage in lives, money and property was done by “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” riots in 2020, but make the riot of Jan. 6, 2021 all about an Insurrection! (See “show trial” above)

    And pay no attention to the million dollar properties bought by Patrisse Cullors, former head of BLM!

    You want some more, anny? Hillary Clinton destroying 33,000 government emails and no arrests? Or how about Hunter Biden and “the Big Guy”? (starts a whole new thread!)

    Let me know when you’ve had enough, and are ready to parley, OK?

  30. Bill says:

    I know better than to get into any discussions with people like Anon who seem fond of not answering except by posing pointless straw man arguments.

    I will be curious to see if he will or can respond to your last barrage across his bow.

    I knew better than to try and have any meaningful discussion with him. It is my fault for being so dumb. I need to be smarter. Forrest Gump was probably right.

    My fault for being so dumb. Anon sets up more straw man arguments than you find in the Wizard of Oz.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Bill exactly what question that you have did you ask me?

    And what straw man argument did I set up?

    I really don’t understand why you people just say things like this that have no tie to reality.

  32. Athos says:

    “and the other poster didn’t even do that…” Are you referring to me, anny? Forget my name?

    That hurts!

    Well, I’m still looking for that Boebert link. Just take your time. I’m sure you’ve got that somewhere, right?

    “I’m wondering if you might be troubled to provide some actual definition of “woke” so that we may know what you find worth condemning…” How about your choice of ANY of the many definitions provided in my July 2, 10:37pm post? Was it too much for you? Should I have typed bigger? (or slower?)

    Straw man arguments. Hmmm. Wanna expound on the John Adams quote I gave? “And just as an aside, do you believe that a church, put in charge of directing the government by the republican representative, would seek persuasion rather than suppression?” Suppression like what FaceBook, the NYT, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC and NBC did with the Hunter Biden laptop story October 2020? Or California Atty General giving out all the addresses of registered gun owners in Cali? Or the protests encouraged by the Brandon crew at the homes of the Supremes? Or threatening to “pack the court” and “get rid of the filibuster” and having the Senate Majority Leader threatening Supreme Court Justices by name? Or IRS audits of Tea Party groups? Or the arrest of Peter Navarro, et al, or all those folks held in DC jail for over a year with no bail? That kind of suppression?

    You haven’t been to church in a while, have you?

    I suppose I should give you and your ilk a break, anny. After all, Donald Trump broke you folks REAL good. You’re raging lunatics that scream and cry and exhibit such misery that it’s really hard to watch. TWO Presidential impeachment trials that amounted to nothing? Constant talk of an illegitimate Supreme Court because you can’t get your way to kill more babies? Here’s one I heard today that I liked. After Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House, can you picture him TEARING UP Joe Brandons speech on National TV? Trump DESTROYED Pelousy, she’ll never recover, will she?

    It would seem that the adults in the room aren’t the people on your side of the aisle, anny. And the sad truth is that reality is finally catching up to your fantasy world. (here’s a hint: there is NO way a boy can become a girl, if he’s born a boy. It’s a chromosome thing and THAT is reality)

  33. Bill says:

    Pretty much covered it Athos. Good job.

    Everything is upside down in the WOKE world.

    I am somewhat encouraged by some of the recent rulings by the SCOTUS.. The trend seems to be towards interpretation by reference ;to the document and the practices and procedures in existence at the time it was written. This “originalism” is refreshing and something that Conservatives have long worked towards to supplant the liberal view that what cannot be accomplished legislatively can be done judicially.

    On the one hand you have people who believe that there is a contract or charter that should be followed and that it is wrong for non elected court members to make laws instead of just interpreting them. Conservatives believe that we genius of our system is that it has checks and balances and is divided among the legislative, executive and judicial and that it is constitutional republic.

    Recent decisions seem to be making determinations that steering us back to where of the Legislative branches of government make the laws, the Executive carries out those laws and the e Court’s interpret those laws.In short, returning our Country to that envisioned by the Framers.

    Rowe v. Wade has long been considered to be a poorly reasoned and poorly written decision by Blackman or as some have claimed written by his law clerk.

    Rowe was thrust upon the nation solely by the Court inventing a new right that does not appear in the Constitution.

    When the Constitution was adopted abortion was illegal in all 13 colonies and in most civilized societies. Infanticide was never a human right. To elevate a woman’s decision to have an abortion to a federal constitutional right came as a shock to many since there was no mention of abortion in the Constitution, abortion was looked upon as a “sin” in many religions and infanticide by many who opposed it on moral and ethical grounds.

    For a right to exist the Constitution says it must be expressly enumerated, and the Framers did so, by enumerating such rights as “speech, press, religion, arms and freedom of assembly.

    Any right not enumerated, is, according to the Constitution, reserved to the States or to the People.

    So for the Blackman Court to discover this new right and make abortion a federal right has caused division from the outset. It has remained fiercely dividing and controversial for years.

    There are those who argue that Rowe should never have been decided the way it was and that the issue is one for the States to decide and that by overturning Rowe it returns the decision making process to the States and the People, not a group of old cloistered justices.

    Then of course we shouldn’t forget the recent decision curtailing the heretofore unfettered power of the non elected EPA to make draconian regulations about curtailing green house gas emissions. Hereto, something that is the responsibility of Congress, elected by the poeple, not an administrative agency. And finally, for a decision that the Colorado Congresswoman who still has that alleged and undocumented statement about religion hanging over her head by Anon, the decision that said it was all right for a high school coach to pray was probably welcome news. Maybe the Court did so because freedom of religion is an enumerated right not a judicially created one.

    Finally, another recent case was soundly and rightly decided by the SOTUS and that was that Homeland Security did not have to continue the Trump remain in Mexico policy.

    The policy was a good one and should have been continued by Biden’ It wasn’t and the Court was correct in holding that Biden had the authority to rescind it.

    Many will decry the Mexico decision but any criticism should be directed towards Biden for terminating the policy and not against the Court for saying that he had the authority to do so. A classic case of an unfortunate result but a correct conclusion.

    Hope you all have a great Fourth of July and take time to be thankful for this marvelous Country of ours that people are breaking into instead of out of.

    And God Bless you all.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Bill you made an accusation about me and now I’ve asked you to support it. I didn’t call you names, I didn’t make anything up and I’m interested in a discussion.

    You claimed that I didn’t answer a question you posed and I asked you what question that was and I don’t see that you responded to me.

    You also claimed that I posed some straw men arguments and yet even though I asked you for an example you never gave me one.

    I don’t get it. You claimed that the woke crowd does these things and that’s apparently why you can’t have reasoned discussions with them but yet I never did either one of those things and you aren’t having a discussion with me.

    Why is that?

  35. Anonymous says:

    And Athos, you’re a child.

    I tried to explain to you before that the world needs to recognize that children aren’t capable of having reasoned discussions and so we can’t pretend that you can by engaging with you in any reasoned way.

    Go play outside and we’ll call you when we’re done.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Let’s try this another way.

    Bill you’ve written quite a piece of argument here and I’m wonder if you can support some of the more…flowery things you’ve included.

    Just two that I found particularly hyperbolic are that:

    “Rowe was thrust upon the nation solely by the Court inventing a new right that does not appear in the Constitution.”

    Because the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property” appears in the Constitution and the Rowe decision is founded upon the right to liberty, it seems to me that Rowe wasn’t thrust on the nation by any court but was firmly grounded in the Constitution.

    Second you say that:

    “For a right to exist the Constitution says it must be expressly enumerated”:

    I wonder if you’d point out where the Constitution says that?

    I’d also ask that you perhaps address another claim you made about rights being enumerated as part of this answer:

    “Any right not enumerated, is, according to the Constitution, reserved to the States or to the People.”

    Where does the Constitution say this? Because, in all my readings of the Constitution, I’ve not found anything like this.

    But maybe I overlooked it?

  37. Athos says:

    Wow, anny. For your edification, I’m not “a child”. But that certainly says much about you, doesn’t it? When you can’t present a logical argument to support your beliefs, your default position is to yell “SHUT UP!”.

    Telling.

    As to my fellow poster Bill, you definitely laid out a proper argument to support “Dobbs”. Anny, Bill also acknowledges my posts directed AT YOU as “..Pretty much covered it…” as to responding to your challenge of – “You claimed that I didn’t answer a question you posed and I asked you what question that was and I don’t see that you responded to me.

    You also claimed that I posed some straw men arguments and yet even though I asked you for an example you never gave me one.”

    Now, I’m gonna type REAL SLOW so you get this….I responded to you, and Bill acknowledged Me.

    Get it??

    Why should Bill retype all the woke BS you refuse to own? Now, let’s look at your Roe argument, shall we?

    “Because the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property” appears in the Constitution and the Rowe decision is founded upon the right to liberty, it seems to me that Rowe wasn’t thrust on the nation by any court but was firmly grounded in the Constitution.”

    You definitely need to expound on this because the first thing that comes to mind is the “Liberty” of the unborn child in the womb. To say that Our Constitution allows infanticide is monstrous. You also ignore the absolute chaos this decision created and the 62 million American deaths as a direct result of this miscarriage of true justice.

    Now for your “rights” question. You’re quite the clever fellow, anny, aren’t you? The 10th Amendment states “powers” not “rights” but how can they not be the same? If you deny the Federal Government the “power” to do something not enumerated in the Constitution, aren’t you also forbidding the “right”? One could certainly usurp the “power” and inflict his own “rights”, but Our Framers cut to the heart of the matter and used the word “powers”.

    Pretty good job, don’t you think?

    Happy 4th of July and Happy Birthday America!

  38. Bill says:

    Anon, Take the time to read the Constitution and perhaps Rowe v. Wade and the SCOTUS decision overturning Rowe in Dobs.

    Your quote about the Constitution is incorrect. The Constitution protects only life and liberty. You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

    It is precisely protection of “Life”is what Dobs is all about.

    If I called you a name I apologize. I have been somewhat busy with family and celebrating he Independence of this great Nation that I have not reviewed your latest closely but but may take the time to respond in more detail later.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Bill I have read the Constitution and Rowe and the decision in Dobbs and you are correct that I misspoke about the language in the Constitution to the extent that I added “property” however the guarantees contained within the 14th Amendment cover liberty and that is the interest that the Supreme Court held in Rowe was a protected right of a woman.

    The claim that a fetus has a protected liberty right is one that the court weighed against the woman’s right to liberty to arrive at its conclusion that while a fetus may have some liberty right, that grows with its evolution toward viability, it was not the same as that a woman had to decide issues relating to her own body which was why the court arrived at the balancing test that it did.

    And this is why I suggested that your hyperbolic statement about Rowe not coming from the Constitution was inappropriate.

  40. Athos says:

    The taking of another innocent life is evil. That is what the medical procedure of abortion accomplishes. The decision to not have a child happens before the act of conception. Row v Wade was a greater evil than Dredd Scott, that denied a black man his humanity, and therefore, his ability to be a citizen. I say Row was a greater evil because it denies the humanity of the baby in the womb, and ending its life by the most barbaric act against such life.

    I, and I dare say, millions like me are relieved and overjoyed to have our belief in this country affirmed by the Dobbs decision. There will always be evil in the world, and in our country. But to say we have a “right to kill an unborn baby” is monstrous. It’s called “infanticide” and that has no place in America.

    I just pray for our Supreme Court Justices and hope they stay unmolested.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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