Dads Against the Divorce Industry

DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.

DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.

SCOTUS: Desperately Seeking Nietzsche and Marx

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
July 10, 2003

There could be reason to celebrate the deliberate dictates of the Supreme Court majority in The Michigan (affirmative action) and Texas (sodomy statutes). That is if one subscribes to the axiom that these are the straws that will break the camel's back; that these contemptible rulings will finally galvanize a rebellion against the indignities that they are.

But there is no reason to celebrate because there is no camel; there is only a growing pile of straw. Following these decisions, the thinly provocative arguments against the court's decrees advanced by numerous commentators are as straw to straw, failing to define the camel. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him?

Among these comments, it has been argued that the Texas statute was a "silly" law (Justice Thomas) and other variants. No it wasn't. It was, as is often and sensibly the case, a legislative mandate deriving from a moral premise. It's intent was to create a societal stop sign to place public limits on individual sexual appetites. It was only the flagrant behavior of the subjects of its enforcement that the law was caused to be exercised.

It's also been argued that SCOTUS clearly usurped State's Rights. Correct. Further, and a bit more comprehensively it's been argued that these decrees sidestepped the Constitution; that the legal briefs proffered by the majority (Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter - in Lawrence) were nothing more than thinly veiled personal beliefs delivered with a patina of legalese. Frighteningly, true.

But all these arguments fail because they merely suckle at the breast of sophistry. A suitable allegory is that of having a bomb lobbed into your back yard, and in retaliation you engage in a discussion of decibels, yield potential, delivery mechanisms, and trajectories, when the situation calls for a declaration of war and a palpable retaliation against a despotic aggressor. It is simply idiotic to bring a softball to a gunfight. Joe McCarthy understood this.

We are at the crest of a 40 year wave of 'progressive' ideology, and in that process we have collectively become dupes of habituation. We've been sedated by the oily lexicon of metaphysical aggression from which flows round-cornered socioterms and communiphrases: judicial activism, diversity, women's issues, gay lifestyle, no-fault divorce, homophobia, wall of separation, self-esteem, gender, multiculturalism, sexual minority, sexual freedom, violence-against-women, sexual diversity, ethnicity, empowerment, reproductive freedom, planned parenthood, privacy, progressive, and 'sensitivity' lest we demean homosexual relationships.

And speaking of premorbid cholesterol levels - "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life" - (Justice Kennedy, 1996, In Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
" ... personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," ... "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. ... (the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the) rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct." - (Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion in Lawrence)

Consider the foregoing statements as you read the following:
"(He) rejected the notion that there is a universal and absolute system of morality that everyone must equally obey. People are different, he thought, and to conceive of morality in universal terms is to disregard basic differences among individuals. Whenever someone proposes a universal moral rule, he invariably seeks really to to deny the fullest expression of man's elemental vital energies. In this respect, Christianity along with Judaism is the worst offender, for the Judeo-Christian ethic is so contrary to man's basic nature that its antinatural morality debilitates man and produces only 'botched and bungled' lives." (in Elements of Philosophy: Turning Values Upside Down pp. 78-79)
The 'he' whose thinking the foregoing describes was Friedrich Nietzsche, the same Nietzsche who declared, "God is dead", and who died hopelessly insane before he could complete his Revaluation of Values.

"Last weekend, Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor appeared on ABC News' This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos. Justice Breyer made the following extraordinary comment on that show: 'Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations.' The comment was made in the course of discussing Lawrence v. Texas, the June 26th decision that struck the sodomy laws of 16 states, by a vote of 6-3 among the Justices. Justice Breyer had agreed with Justice Kennedy that members of the Court should look to foreign courts and foreign laws in deciding what laws should apply in the United States." (source: Congressman Billybob) With regard to Justice Breyer's world view, consider the following:
"Moreover, the greatest error is to fail to realize that ideas that accurately reflected the material order at an earlier time no longer do so because, in the meantime, the substructure of reality has moved on. Those who hold on to old ideas do not realize that there is no longer any reality corresponding to those ideas, and their desire to reverse the order of things to fit these ideas makes them 'reactionaries.' On the other hand, an astute observer can discover the direction in which history is moving and will adjust his thinking and behavior to it. Those who assume the objective reality of 'eternal principles' of justice, goodness, and righteousness do not realize that such notions cannot refer to reality since the material order, which is the only reality, is constantly changing. ... when the inner contradictions between the classes (are ) resolved, the principle cause of movement and change (will) disappear, (and) a classless society (will) emerge where all the forces (will) be in perfect balance, and this equilibrium (will) be perpetual." (in Elements of Philosophy: Class Conflict pp. 183-84)
When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the rest of that majority six-pack engage the lexicon of the "living and breathing" Constitution, unscrupulously asserting that the Founders intended it to have the oozy flexibly to conform to each capricious whim of the American people - not to mention conformity with foreign constitutions, their 'astute observations' are alarmingly consistent with the thinking of the central figure of the foregoing assessment - Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto.

USA Today made the incredible statement: "the currently conservative court has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties." They are wrong on both points. Neither is this a 'conservative' court, nor is it a mere possibility that they will adopt foreign court's views - they just have. But the USA Today story is a glaring example of the twin evils of habituation and sedation overwhelming the faculty of critical thinking.

In these most recent decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States completely abandoned any pretense of operating within so much as the 'penumbra' or 'emanations' of our founding document, the United States Constitution. These edicts reflect instead Nietzsche's advocacy of Godlessness and the Will to Power, as well as Marx's condemnation of Class Conflict in favor of a classless society.

The abolition of historicity and moral foundation has been evidenced by SCOTUS since Roe v Wade discovered 'privacy'. It has now moved into whole new avenues of promiscuity and the permanent ensconcement of the victim classes. In the Marxist lexicon of Justice Breyer, "it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people."

Having progressively and contradictorily established in law a motley assortment of classes, the O'Connor court has now set itself the task of the great leveling of the global playing field by oozing the 'artificial' barriers of individuated sovereign law into one great world constitution.

And that, my friends, is more than a violation of trust and oath of office that vows to uphold the United States Constitution. It is an insidious attempt to usurp the power of the states and indeed, the sovereignty of the United States. As such this is a greater evil than that which Joe McCarthy faced. At least his enemy had a name, Communism.

What shall we call this? Despotic narcissism? Or maybe ... Communihilism.

Back to DA*DI's Home