We were already awake, but we were rudely interrupted by blaring sirens and lights flashing on the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™. The blinking letters on the wall said WorldNetDaily.
WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.
As we feared, we were directed to a rant by Ellis Washington. The best example of his cosmic-level thinking can be found here, Scripture Trumps Darwin, when he informed us of “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”:
The typical Ellis article is a rapid romp through history, promiscuously dropping names and concepts that have no connection to each other or to the subject at hand — and often describing “trilogies” of evil people. The names comprising Ellis’ trilogies vary, but one of the three is usually Darwin. If Darwin isn’t in a trilogy, he’s always included in one of Ellis’ name-salads of evil people.
But there are no trilogies in today’s essay from Ellis. The title is Justice Clarence Thomas vs. Jeffrey Toobin. Like several of his recent articles, it’s about the US Supreme Court, and we’ve been ignoring them.
The only reason we’re posting about this one is that he somehow figured out a way to get Darwin involved. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
There are three things I hold as relative certainties in this uncertain, vexatious world of moral relativism: 1) God is in control of everything and every person in the universe and will one day settle all accounts, 2) the sun will rise tomorrow morning and 3) Justice Clarence Thomas will uphold his sacred oath he made 21 years ago “to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
Nice beginning. We like Justice Thomas too, but how does Darwin fit into Ellis’ list of “relative certainties”? It involves Justice Thomas, as Ellis explains in the next paragraph:
This last entry drives progressives, socialists and liberal Democrats crazy because – since the publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species…” (1859), which for 150 years has changed the existential paradigm of history and knowledge based on God and truth for humanism and will to power – secularists and positive law academics no longer view the Constitution as a document of negative and limited rights but a document of positive rights which constantly evolves to fit the needs of a relentlessly changing culture and society.
Yowie! Ellis blames Darwin for the “evolving” way liberal judges have been interpreting the Constitution! Here’s one more excerpt:
The only certainty in the law is its constant uncertainty held in check by an activist judicial oligarchy of five and the Latin precept: boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem (good justice is broad jurisdiction). The constitutional framers like Jefferson would have held the jurisprudence of Marbury v. Madison based on the above Latin aphorism as tantamount to treason.
Incredible! To begin with, Jefferson wasn’t one of the Framers of the Constitution. He was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the drafting convention. And then there’s Marbury v. Madison. Ellis says it’s “tantamount to treason.”
Ellis seems not to know that Marbury v. Madison was written in 1803, more than a half-century before Darwin published Origin of Species. There was discussion of judicial review at the constitutional convention, and it’s also mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but Marbury v. Madison is recognized as the official origin of the doctrine of judicial review — by which the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress to be unconstitutional.
It’s true that Jefferson didn’t think the Constitution gave that power to the court. He was concerned that such a power might make the judiciary a despotic branch of government, and he seemed to prefer the clumsy solution of a constitutional amendment every time such an issue might arise. But he accepted the situation — it was his action as President that triggered the case because he wouldn’t deliver a commission to Marbury. Chief Justice Marshall said that although Jefferson was wrong and shouldn’t have done that, Congress had unconstitutionally given the court jurisdiction over such matters. The result was that Jefferson’s action wasn’t corrected. Anyway, that’s not what interests us here.
Hey — guess what? Obama agrees with Ellis! He too thinks the court has no authority to declare congressional laws unconstitutional. If Justice Thomas is one of those declaring that “Obama-care” is unconstitutional, what will Ellis think of that?
We won’t bother with the rest of Ellis’ essay. It’s a defense of Justice Thomas against one of his critics, and that’s nowhere near on point for our blog. The good stuff was right in the beginning. Everything is Darwin’s fault — even Marbury v. Madison.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.