Tag Archives: Hypocrisy

SCOTUS and the coming age of Hypocrisy

The Roberts Court, April 23, 2021 Seated from left to right: Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor Standing from left to right: Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

With the news that the Gov. of California is thinking of using the Texas anti-abortion law as a blue print for an anti-assault gun law I’ve heard from several sources the idea that SCOTUS will be faced with the problem of how to up hold one while striking down the other. While it maybe a little difficult anyone who has studied the history of the court knows this will not be the first time SCOTUS has faced this problem. I, for one, see this as a golden opportunity for the ‘Textulests’ and ‘Originalist’ of constitutional legal theory. Both of these philosophies have a fundamental aversion to the concept of “Implied Rights”.

Before we dive deeper let me give you my understanding of “Implied Rights” as it deals with the Constitution. For me there are basically two kinds of “Implied Rights”. In both cases the right is not enumerated, stated explicitly, in the text of the constitution. The first kind of “Implied Right” is of the kind that if the right didn’t exist, then an stated right would be functional meaningless. A good example of this is the “Implied Right” to have a vote counted. The right to vote assumes that once a vote is cast it will be counted, otherwise the casting of the vote has no reason to be. The next “Implied Right” is much more nebulous. This is the right of liberty in our person. This is the right that is at issue with ‘Roe vs. Wade’. The right to liberty is not expressly stated in the constitution.

The closest the Constitution gets to granting the right to Liberty is in the Preamble where is states the Constitution is established to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” The inalienable rights are given in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. An while SCOTUS has stated the Declaration is part of our fundamental national law the Constitution takes no note of it. In my view to exclude the Declaration would make a mockery of the Constitution, it is quite possible for some future court to do that. So where does that leave us with the new Texas legal theory?

Just this: the Texas law deals with an “Implied Right” and the proposed California law deals with an enumerated right (the Second Amendment). All SCOTUS needs to do is find some reasoning that says that “Implied Rights” don’t get the same degree of protection, if any, as “Enumerated Rights”. This would be a very interesting slippery slope to go down an I invite you, my dear reader, to think upon all of your ‘Rights” that an just an “Implied Right” and not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Lets see what the “Trump” Court decision is.

Hypocrisy and Perspective: Part One

Let us be perfectly clear from the start. I am a child of the 60’s. I turned 10 in 1961 and was 18 in 1969. An while I was anything but a hippie/flower child I was deeply influenced by the time. One of the most lasting was my total disdain of Hypocrisy and of lying. I was already predisposed to rejecting Hypocrisy because of my natural, if not instinctual, logic. Also i had close experience with someone who lied about everything and anything.

My first real exposure to the political Hypocrisy of the 50’s and early 60’s was in the 1964 election when I got a copy of “None Dare Call it Treason”. When my mother saw i was reading it she immediate directed me to other sources, news papers, encyclopedias, etc to fact check what the book said. I had already been shocked by the crushingly poor logic and reasoning of the book. It was not till years later when I was introduced to classic Greek logic was I to true comprehend the truly horrible work this book is. This is where I mark my life long crusade against Hypocrisy.

So why this post? Two reasons actually. According to the New York Post Pres. Trump has now told over 10,000 lies and we’re not talking about your run of the mill political lies, we’re talking about bald faced lies. Like the one he just told this week. You know the one (I shan’t repeat it here, it is too vial) about late term abortions. But this is not about Pres. Trump, he is just a symptom of what is wrong with what is known as the ‘conservative movement’. I’m not talking about your run of the mill Jack and Jill conservative, no. I’m talking about the true ‘movement conservatives’.

It is as hard to define a ‘movement conservative’ as it is easy to identify them when you see them. I’m also not going to get into the debate about “there are hypocrites on the left”. Anyone who studies the subject knows that hypocrisy and lying happen on both sides. No, what I’m going to be talking about is systemic hypocrisy of conservative thought and speech. This problem has existed in this country since it’s founding (I like to use the 3/5ths comprise as a starting point) and we have it with us still. There are several things we can use to detect hypocrisy in the ‘conservative movement’. I like to start with the use of euphemisms, most famous in our history is ‘particular institution’ for slavery. Euphemisms are still in vogue today, just consider “alternative facts” for lies (or to be more exact incorrect facts). Another diagnostic is the use of ill defined terms. Like Humpty Dumpty said “a word means exactly what I mean it to mean”. There is a simple experiment I like to perform with people who talk a lot about ‘Capitalism’, I tell them I have never really understood the term and you they kindly tell me what it actually means. 9 times out of 10 I find they have no clear idea either.

This brings me to my last diagnostic, perspective. By this I me just this. That which I like and approve of is “conservative” and good, right, and proper. An everything else is bad, evil, and improper. This has a very interesting effect on talking about ‘conservative movement’, anything less than full support becomes a personal attack. It is fundamentally impossible to have a rational talk with a ‘movement conservative’ because any questioning of the ideas expressed become a personal attack. An there is nothing you can do to change this.

Think on it. Next installment of this post I’ll go into how this works so well with classical logical fallacies, Hypocrisy, and what can de done about it.

Party Cognitive Dissonance and Hypocrisy

Yesterday we had a wonderful example of cognitive dissonance causing the GOP to take on the appearance of hypocrisy.  Ca. House Reps. Keven McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), Devin Nunes (R-Tilare) and David Valadao (R-Handford) are calling the current drought ‘man-made’.  (read what Rep McCarthy and Rep Nues have posted)  This just days after others in the GOP are decrying  the myth of climate change and any connection with actions by man.

Back in the 60’s, when I was a teenager and knew everything, this kind of action by a political party was why we called them ‘Hypocrites’ (in case your wondering it was the Democratic party we were directing this charge).  Now to be fair, the good Congressmen were talking about actions taken by the ‘Radical Ecologist’ movement and not the burning of oil/gas.  The problem facing the Congressmen is that they are saying “Yes, actions of man can effect the climate, but only those action done by people we don’t like.”  Unfortunately this is not how science or logic work.