Rejecting Tomi Lahren's Pink Slime Pro-Choice Perspectives

In offering analysis after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren opined that conservatives seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade are effectively spitting on the Constitution.

Lahren has been outspoken in her adherence to abortion rights.  She was separated from Glenn Beck's "The Blaze TV" last year because of her inconsistent opinions about abortion.  This was sparked by an appearance on ABC's The View in which she argued that it was hypocritical to be anti-choice and be a small government conservative.    Beck insisted that he wanted to terminate Lahren for lacking intellectual integrity.

“I can’t speak for the company and why they did it, but it had nothing to do with being pro-choice...
What I have a problem with is somebody who will change their point of view or that will say absolutely crazy, red meat things, and not have any intellectual firepower to back it up. Have the intellectual integrity to be able to back things up.”

Now Lahren laments that some conservatives want a Supreme Court to carry out religious judicial activism to get rid of Roe v. Wade (1973).  Tantalizing pro-choice red meat but it like the pink slime substitute which some fast food outlets use to sell dollar menu items to a hungry public even though it causes indigestion.

Lahren assumes that any rollback of Roe would be premised on religious issues.  Even the Roe decision recognizes that government has interests in unborn life in the last trimester that is viable.  Prenatal medicine has made great leaps of advancement so viability is pushed closer to the 20th week of pregnancy.  No signs of religion in this hermaneutic. And that does not even consider the scientific fact that human life begins at the moment of conception

Pro-Choice jurisprudence currently rests on the shaky foundation of abortion as being included in a right to privacy that is within  penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights, as applied to states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Justice Blackmun's holding in Roe is a quintessential example of judicial activism, legislating from the bench for the entire nation.

Conceptually, a texualist originalist led Supreme Court could rule that "the right to privacy" is not enumerated within the Federal Constitution and that the Tenth Amendment is applicable.  This would throw the abortion issue back to the states, where it resided prior to the 1973 judicial fiat.  Some states, like California and New York, would have liberal abortion laws, while other states may be more restrictive.   That sort of subsidiary jurisprudence sounds like small government conservatism.

Maybe Lahren's political science studies at UNLV did not adequately cover jurisprudence.  She seems to think that it is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to overrule bad precedent or is judicial activism.   In his confirmation hearing to become Chief Justice in 2005, John Roberts noted that stare decisis does not hold as a legal precedent when a matter was wrongly decided.  But in Tomi Lahren's legal logic, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that overturned the Separate but Equal standard of  Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was just spitting on the Constitution too. 

It is lamentable that Fox News turns to Tomi Lahren for legal analysis.  In little more than a year, she has shifted her abortion rights advocacy from being premised on what she believes is small government conservatism to combating religious judicial activism.  No wonder she burned her bridge at The Blaze TV for lacking intellectual integrity. 

Some may want to consume pink slime perspectives because they are spicy tasty morsel temptations, but assuredly many leave the establishment when such dreck is  seen on the television menu.

President Ronald Reagan on Prayer

A Bit of Common Core Constitutional Cut Up

Sixth Grade students in Bryant, Arkansas were given a curious assignment as part of theCommon Core curriculum.   The History class at Bryant Middle School had an assignment aimed at inspiring persuasive and engaging presentations.  All the groups of eleven year olds had to do was prioritize and revise the Bill of Rights.

 The History class work is premised on the idea that the government of the United States has determined that the Bill of Rights is outdated.  The assignment asked students to assume the persona of an excerpt on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights named to the "National Revised Bill of Rights (NRBR) Task Force, which is charged with ensuring that the "pursuit of happiness remains guarded in the 21st Century".   The substantial objective of this exercise was to excise two Amendments and add two Amendments.

This exercise was fundamentally flawed on its substance. This faux NRBR task force was supposed to protect the "pursuit of happiness".  But that phrase is in the Declaration of Independence (1776) not the Bill of Rights.

These middle school students had not been schooled on the reasons why the Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison in 1789 and ratified in 1791.  They have no idea that the Constitution would not have been ratified by several of the States without the prospect of a Bill of Rights.   Obviously, the arguments by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists would be far beyond their ken in civics.

[***]

The Bryant School District is proud to embrace the Common Core standards to improve students literacy and math skills. Common Core seeks to augment these skill sets through interdisciplinary learning.  Thus this History assignment was supposed to test reading, writing and language skills on informational texts.

[***]

Unfortunately, this History exercise was premised on the Patriot Act debate, which is asking a lot of middle school students, particularly without the background knowledge of history or civics.  Moreover, the instructions of the exercise circumvents the Constitution Amendment process in trying to prune and update it.  The subject matter is so cutting edge, it is hard not to believe that the teacher will not color the debate and the student presentations. Such shaping of opinion in the guise of education shows why some conservatives are so chary about Common Core.

SEE MORE at DCBarroco.com

Red-Lined Bill of Rights

It's a pity that so much red-ink has been used to touch up this symbolic piece of parchment, especially since so much blood has been spilled to protect it.

It might be time to correct the "Teacher's" red-lined "corrections".  Is it Tea time again? Or maybe better to wonder "Who is John Galt?"

Alas, newly confirmed CIA Director John Brennan chose to take his oath of office on the original Constitution without the Bill of Rights.  Inquiring minds what to know what this means.

Hubert Humphrey on Guns

Even the "Happy Warrior"  Hubert H. Humphrey recognized that the Second Amendment was not the Hunting Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

It just shows how liberalism has "progressed" in the Democrat Party since 1968.

h/t: Bill Sanders

Celebrating Bill of Rights Day

 Today is the 221st  anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. On this date in 1791, the Commonwealth of Virginia was the 12th State to ratify the ten amendments that were then incorporated into our Constitution.

 These are not arcane relics of history. Every day, Americans practice their freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Americans depend on access and the fairness of the judicial system. Our property rights can be challenged by eminent domain abuse. And ultimately, citizens need to protect their right to bear arms–it’s not about hunting but the ultimate safeguard against the abuse of a tyrannical government.

 Read More at the DCBarroco website.