RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/14/in-minneapolis-rage-and-fear-have-hobbled-a-great-american-city/

The one-two punch of riots over George Floyd’s death and shutdowns over the pandemic have taken a terrible toll on the City of Lakes.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. — The intersection in south Minneapolis where George Floyd died in police custody on May 25 has become a quasi-religious shrine. It is a shrine not just to Floyd, who is honored here as if he were a saint or a martyr, but to the political power of the Black Lives Matter movement and the ascendency of the radical left in this city.

The intersection and the neighborhood around it have been “occupied” for months now. To get to the memorial—or “George Square,” as it’s now called—you must approach on foot. For a block in every direction, the streets are closed to traffic, barricaded by concrete roadblocks and makeshift chevaux de frise. Behind the roadblocks, plywood shields are stacked up next to a tent and an outhouse.

A young man in a pink sweater and green hair greets me as I approach. He informs me that it is Indigenous Peoples Day (formerly Columbus Day), and that there is a healing circle for indigenous peoples underway at the intersection next to the memorial. I am not allowed to take pictures of them, he says. By what authority he orders me not to take pictures, he doesn’t say. So I take pictures.

The memorial itself is a 15-foot black fist erected in the middle of the intersection of East 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, festooned roundabout with flowers and signs and graffiti and flags. Every conceivable surface, from the streets and sidewalks and light poles to the buildings and bus shelters and the abandoned Speedway gas station on the corner, is covered in graffiti and posters and overlapping murals.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/10/judge-barrett-bibles-requisite-righteous-judge/

With the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nation is once again embroiled in its recurring conflict over what judicial approach should animate our courts. 

Judge Barrett exemplifies the originalist approach, which dominated most of American history, where the U.S. Constitution’s text and its original meaning and intent determine outcomes. Those on the left, advocates of a judicial activism rooted in the era of FDR, continually push for justices who view the Constitution more as an expedient to maneuver toward a liberal social and political agenda, a malleable, “living” document submissive to their vision of how society should look and operate.

Because the Bible produced many of the themes and structure found later in the Constitution, and our Founders saw in it a model for a constitutional society, it may be worthwhile to observe what it says about judges and jurisprudence. The Bible clearly enunciates a conservative, originalist approach to justice.

In Leviticus 19:15, Scripture declares that a judge must not social engineer decisions. “You shall not be unrighteous in judgment, neither in favor of the poor or the mighty.” Righteousness is applying the law, not implementing one’s own political or social activism of what should be. In the Rose Garden last week, Judge Barrett affirmed that biblical principle. When speaking earlier at a different occasion, Judge Barrett, a conservative protegee of Justice Antonin Scalia, affirmed: “I totally reject the proposition that the end justifies the means or that a judge should decide the law or twist it in any way to match the judge’s convictions”.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/barrett-obamacare-and-severability-again/

Democrats don’t have much chance of derailing Barrett’s nomination, so they might as well use the high-profile hearings to campaign.
C learly, a big issue in Day Two of the Barrett confirmation hearings is the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court. Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) began the day by drawing out the nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, on the Court’s doctrine of severability.

Here’s why it’s important.

Democrats are claiming that President Trump and Republicans are trying to rush Judge Barrett onto the Court in time for her to rule on Texas v. California, a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that the justices will hear on November 10 — a week after Election Day. As I’ve repeatedly observed, it is a weak challenge, not remotely as strong as the original challenges to the ACA that the Court nevertheless rejected. Yet President Trump directed his Justice Department to join Texas and the other states who are arguing that the ACA must be invalidated.

They theorize that because the individual mandate has been “zeroed out,” it no longer qualifies as a tax and must be invalidated, since its being a tax was the basis on which the Court upheld it in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Extravagantly, and far more dubiously, the states joined by the Trump administration contend that, because the mandate was so central to the ACA, the invalidation of the mandate necessitates the invalidation of the entire, extensive ACA statutory scheme (which includes some popular provisions, particularly coverage of people with preexisting conditions).