Pelosi's Gamble on Taiwan

 

US to Signal Future On Taiwan With Pelosi Visit

Will Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan create the impetus for an attack from Beijing?

She is supposed to visit Taiwan sometime in August. We won’t know exactly when because security is a major issue with heads of state and diplomats. US officials frequently fly in on military aircraft and the Speaker’s visit would likely look no different. It’s a problem for Beijing because they claim Taiwan as a providence of the mainland. I won’t go into the whole history of Taiwan and China or the United States’ ‘One China’ policy that’s guided affairs since 1971.

Where We Were

The short version is that we (the US) have an agreement with Taiwan to provide them with defensive means in case of an attack. We don’t call Taiwan a ‘country’ nor advocate for their independence. The first would be admitting that it’s a sovereign nation. The second would be encouraging rebellion from the central government. So we walk this awkward line that only creative diplomacy could have drawn. It’s worked for now. Mostly because China didn’t have the ability to do anything about our strategic partnership with Taiwan.

But this isn’t 1985 anymore. 

The PRC (Peoples Republic of China) have been building up defensive fortifications in the South China Sea. Not only because of Taiwan but to establish a zone of influence and push back against America’s Navy. The navy enjoys freedom of the seas and patrols the world’s oceans as the default police. This is a good thing. You wouldn’t want China to play this role. Beijing’s military buildup increases their belligerence and power. It’s making the possibility of war between us and them a real thing.

Where We Are

Their message to Pelosi if she goes ahead with her visit: the United States will bear the consequences of their actions. In other words, a military response. In recent years they’ve stepped up their sorties over the strait and the US increased naval exercises in response. It’s a chess match played out with very high stakes. The PRC has done this kind of thing before.

 In 1995 Congress offered the Taiwanese president (Lee Tung-hui) a visa to speak at his Alma Matter, Cornell.

Beijing complained that the US was rejecting its official position as neutral on Taiwan, which of course we were. America has never really been neutral on the issue, but diplomacy requires a lighter touch. Better to argue over breakdowns in communication than argue about when to send in the troops. Neutrality comes with its own conflicts.

The State department issued the visa despite China’s protest. China responded by ramping up military exercises and lobbing missiles into the strait. The attempt to intimidate Taiwan resulted in closer ties with the US and Japan over the security of the island. Not to mention we’ve sold them missile defense technology many times over since then. But also, China put a lot of effort into building up their puny navy. They have 2 aircraft carriers and a 3^rd is on the way. They have more war ships than the US (355 versus 305) and their island dredging campaigns give them ocean bases from which to launch attacks.

Where We Are Going

The PRC isn’t confined to their mainland anymore and they’ve build one hell of a military. The question now, how committed is the US to defending Taiwan?

I don’t think Nancy Pelosi will go to Taiwan with a military escort. The Washington Examiner suggested she fly commercial to Taipei. At least then it doesn’t look like a provocation. It’s still a poke in the eye though. If president Xi Jinping flew to Seattle with on an official visit and didn’t bother to let the US government know, we’d consider that a major break from tradition and an offense. But it’s better than flying there with his PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) fighter jets in tow.

I’m not using moral equivalency. The United States and China are not two sides of the same coin. But in diplomacy you always have to imagine how the other side might view it. Beijing has been telling their people that Taiwan belongs to them. How does it look then when they issue warnings to other governments to back off and they don’t listen? There will be a response I have no doubt. Hopefully it’s not a direct attack.

 We need to defend Taiwan while recognizing that it’s the Taiwanese people who will be hurt most of all by an attack from the mainland’s anger. 

 

The Lincoln Highway: A Review

 

Reconciling the Past: Amor Towles' The Lincoln Highway

“That my friends is a story” I said to no one in particular as I closed out the reading app on my phone.

I’d borrowed if from the library on one of their reader apps. Called The Lincoln Highway by Amor Towles it left me wishing I could write like that. I chose it on whim because I like the cover. Never underestimate the cover. It shows an old Studebaker on a straight country road with a train going the opposite direction. The country road happened to be Nebraska as I found out in the first chapter.

Summary

The year is 1954 and Emmitt rides with a Warden back to his home in rural Nebraska. His time in the work camp is up and he’s being released. His brother, 8-year-old Billy, waits for him to arrive so they can travel to California and find their mother. She abandoned them years ago after their father struggled to become a farmer. He is dead now and the bank foreclosed on the property. Before he died though he hid some money inside of a Studebaker for Emmitt and Billy.

Two of Emmitt’s friends from the work camp, Duchess and Woolly, show up unannounced. They hid inside the trunk of the Warden’s car and are now on the lam. Woolly, who is from an aristocratic family in New York insists that the 4 should drive him to the family cabin in the Adirondacks and take the money he has set aside for them. Emmitt doesn’t want to go to New York and instead drives them to a boy’s home in Salina where Duchess used to live. After some antics at the facility, Duchess steals the car and heads for New York with Woolly.

Breakdown

The rest of the story is takes place over a ten day period in which Emmitt tracks down his car with Billy. Despite traversing half the country on the Lincoln Highway, the journey never feels like a classic road trip where the characters experience famous sights and hunt down the best burger joint. Some of that is inevitable, Howard Johnsons makes an appearance in Indiana and a statue of Lincoln in Illinois. This America in the fifties after all, but the book is concerned with the 4 characters and their growth.

At its core, The Lincoln Highway is a story about conflicts and how people resolve them. Life is messy and it’s not always our fault. All four of the characters have difficult challenges to move past. Even when the difficulties are self-imposed, life demands that we make sense of it. Often it takes leaving home to figure it out. What values do we take with us and how do events change us?

Characters

Duchess moves the story along more than anyone else. A charlatan who, despite his many faults, still manages to show heart in places and stumble into the right thing. His sense of morality is skewed by a father who abandoned him. Woolly is a classic ‘follower’ and probably autistic. He is easily distracted but sentimental to the core. His wealthy family instilled in him, a sense of belonging before his dad was killed in the war. Billy is Emmitt’s younger brother and the default narrator of the book. His almanac of heroes is a collection of famous heroes from Greek literature, Ulysses, Achilles, Theseus and Hector. The almanac provides a framework for how we, the reader, understand the hero’s journey.

Emmitt is the hero of the story. He lost his father and needs to become a man and demonstrate for his younger brother how to do it. He searches far and wide and gets sidetracked along the way.

8-year-old Billy is the least like a real person. His eternal optimism and adventurous spirit keep Emmitt moving toward the goal of going to California. Only when an itinerant preacher riding the same freight car tries to rob him does Billy exhibit any fear. His constant reminders of ancient heroes and facts about history serve the readers more than the other characters.

Style

Amor Towles used 3^rd person narratives with all of the characters except for Duchess. For him he switched to first person. I didn’t even realize it until one of the reviews I read mentioned that. For what purpose did he do that? Some think it meant that Duchess is actually the main character. But he’s the least likable one. And he undergoes the least amount of change (growth) from the beginning to the end. Maybe that’s less important. There is a mystery with Duchess that takes longer to develop than the others, but I can’t say he’s the protagonist.

Presenting the unfolding story from different perspectives allows us to see events through the characters’ lens. We wouldn’t sympathize with Woolly, for instance, or understand his motivations without this technique. He is absentminded and rooted in the past. His wistful memories of his childhood cabin and family retreats take up most of his focus. We are introduced to other types who aid or thwart Emmitt’s goal of finding his car and heading to California. Each one gets a chapter or two to describe their version of events. It’s an interesting way to write for different characters.

The book was a joy to read and I will look for more by this author.

 

 

Running Away from the Thief of Joy

 

Run Better With Groups and Get Back Your Joy

I got back with my running group today.

 It’s a local training program for those eager to exhaust themselves in either a half or a full marathon. I’ve done a few half marathons but never a full. I wasn’t sure if I’d want to go that far but here I am. A marathon is a grueling affair even for those who’ve done them before. I won’t downplay the half but it doesn’t have the same level of suck as the full.

 But comparison is the thief of joy and I’m just happy to be training for anything.

There is something in any organized run that pushes you to finish strong. It could be the fans standing along the street waving banners and handing you drinks. It could be the others around you in various states of exhaustion. It could be a combination of both.

But before the event starts you have to practice even when it's uncomfortable.

New Levels New Goals

Training programs are designed to get you to run at a slower pace and strengthen your legs for a longer haul. In the past I’ve tried running at the same pace for longer and longer distances. But it breaks down at a certain point. Your legs won’t survive at the late race stage unless you’ve practiced it a few times. That probably sounds obvious but for me it’s been a revelation. My old mindset is just get there as fast as possible, Army PT style. Also, I’ve never trained at such long distances. My focus is always on the 13.1 miles and not an inch more.

But with patience comes strength. With strength comes endurance and with endurance you can do what you never thought. I’m not just talking about running. This is a lesson for life and it’s probably why I enjoy the training so much. Looking back at difficult seasons will build a sense of confidence you can’t get any other way. The first time I did any writing for money I had to rethink how I organized information. I read up on the particulars of web writing and arranging concepts along SEO (Search Engine Optimization) principles. 

It all made perfect sense until I had to submit my work. It was then that my notion of quality work took a hit. Different skills require different muscles. Eventually I got it.

Read all the books you want on any subject, eventually you’ll have to apply what you learned.

 In running it looks like competition. In life it looks like risk. Failure is a certainty some of the time, but it doesn’t have to define you.

Build on the Past

I failed to hit my last goal of a sub 2-hour half marathon. I finished just 2 minutes shy. But I was closer than my last time of 2:15. What’s the best way to view that failure? As an improvement of 13 minutes. That’s a whole minute per mile. Not to mention, I hustled under the finish banner running hard. Before that day I’d nearly collapsed in a heap of raw legs and B.O. at the slower time. I started looking around for the ambulance in case I needed an IV. Because of the different experiences I’ve had to rein in my expectations a little bit and not get frustrated when I have a poor showing.

Training is where you work out the kinks and sometimes you need to hit pause. It’s been two years since I joined a group, choosing to go it alone. I did this because an injury that didn’t go away. I tried to massage it and roll out the arch, I bought new shoes and stayed off my feet as much as possible. I scanned websites for information and watched YouTube for advice. Nothing worked except prayer. Eventually the pain left and I got back to a regular schedule on my own. Now I need the discipline of progressive distances and the support of friends committed to the same goal.

Conclusion

When life mirrors running we get to see wins. Some seasons we go it alone, afraid of getting hurt. But community is where the growth happens even if we think we don’t need it. I've benefited from writing forums as much as running clubs. Winning in life looks like maturity and accepting responsibility in all areas of life. The way to determine improvement is to look back.

If comparison is the thief of joy, we should track our own progress and let God determine our steps.

The Last Three Popes Signal Christ's Return

 

Is Francis the Last Pope?

I read a short primer this weekend called TheLast Three Popes Signal Christ’s Return.

It’s by Jack Van Impe who I remember from a 90’s TV show that followed Leno (maybe Letterman) on local stations. It might have been during the week but my memory is a little fuzzy. He always found the anti-Christ lurking in every newspaper story on the Middle East. I found him a tad alarmist. 

But I enjoyed the book more than I expected. I have a new found appreciation for the man with the tacky headlines and and-day-now excitement in his voice.

Here are a few things I learned.

Marxism At the Heart

The ‘last three popes’ is more a summary and not a deep dive into the papacy or the catechisms. At just over 100 pages it’s a warning that the Catholic Church is about to split, forever. The underlying problem is the Jesuits and their embrace of Marxism which is an anti-Christian bulwark within the very institution that represents “Christ on the earth”. But the fundamentals of the centuries old institution is being remade. Since the nomination of Pope Francis in 2013 the Vatican is being remade in the image of the Jesuits.

A lot of this ‘last pope’ stuff comes from a prophecy by St. Malachi in the 12^th century. He accurately predicted Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI as the precursors to the last one, Francis. But because Francis is a Jesuit and compromiser, he will be at the helm when the schism happens. But you also have to believe in St. Malachi’s prophecy. I’m not familiar with it but apparently a lot of the Catholic teachings and writings seem to agree with this set up.

Liberation Theology

Van Impe examines Liberation Theology and its pernicious influence on the Jesuit order, not to mention its loose tie with Catholic teaching. In a nutshell, Liberation Theology sees people through the same bifurcated lens as communism—haves and have nots. They see class struggle in scripture and in modern day. A priest who rages against the capitalist system and works to overthrow it is doing the work of the people. The church basically lost Latin America and other 3^rd world countries to this ideal.

From the book. “…Once the Jesuits admitted the attitude that all prior theology was only speculation, and useless speculation at that, as far as Latin America was concerned, all need to study Thomism and traditional Scholastic Theology and philosophy in Jesuit seminaries ceased.” (page 27)

Francis' Pragmatism

Into this environment come both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, trying to keep the church together while holding to traditional teachings. By the time Pope Francis comes around the ground is fertile for rebellion. Francis isn’t a total rebel as much of an appeaser, someone who has softened stances on gay marriage and communism. Two years ago he cut a deal with the Chinese leadership to allow them to nominate bishops, an unheard of acquiescence.

I’m always surprised at how the Catholic Church has been able to keep such a sprawling centuries old organization together. Even with the disparate parts and shifting loyalties the Vatican is still the official center of the organization. I know that not everything is a clean as it seems. Within the church the schism is a forgone conclusion.

Inerrancy of Scripture

 A secondary aspect of the book is to show how two halves of the same tradition see Jesus and scriptures as fundamentally different things. The Church remains but only in name.

John Paul II was a stalwart defender of Christ and tradition. He saw communism as a great evil and became the antidote to the strain of unbelieve spreading across the world. Benedict XVI reinforced the vision of the church as it’s been interpreted for centuries. Francis has turned tradition on its head and allowed secular forces to infiltrate what’s left of it.

Will he be the last pope? I’m not sure. What’s interesting to me is that the global Catholic Church reflects exactly what’s happening in the Protestant world as well. We see a similar version play out in Protestant denominations, both Presbyterians and Methodists have split nationally. It’s not just over homosexual laity either. It’s over what that means for the fundamentals of belief. If gay marriage is acceptable to God, the ultimate source of our believe, then the Bible isn’t reliable.  

It's the inerrancy of scripture that’s under assault. Only a bold defense of the Bible, as written will turn back the tide. If there is no turning back and the tide overwhelms us we really are in the last days. Jack Van Impe would certainly be right.

 

 

Crude Operator

 

Joe Biden released sold some of our strategic reserve oil to China, better known as our enemy. 

I had to read up on this a little. Oil is a world commodity and I didn’t want to make any obvious errors with how this is supposed to go. Nothing is worse than taking the bait on a story like that and finding out that, actually this is a normal thing for presidents to do. But it isn’t the case.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is just what it sounds like, a reserve of energy should war happen. Other presidents have released oil from the reserve at different times. Mostly it’s during shortages or severe weather disruptions like Hurricane Katrina (George W Bush) or geopolitical disruptions like the war in Libya (Barrack Obama 2011). George Bush Sr. released 17 million during the first gulf war. It seems to be about keeping prices stable to offset traders bidding high on oil.

The SPR is run by the Department of Energy and purchased with tax dollars. President Biden promised to release a million barrels per day back in March. But it didn’t stabilize prices. They kept going up. Now we find out that China and Europe got some of our reserves, over 5 million barrels. Europe is an ally so it’s slightly less of an issue. But China? Really? Sinopec has a relationship with Hunter Biden, because of course they do. 

Letting your savings go to an adversary is either completely incompetent or malicious in the extreme. The whole point of a reserve is to use in case of a crisis. High gas prices are not a crisis. They’re an irritation. Especially when considering the disastrous anti-oil preferences of this administration, high prices are the point. Biden should leave the country’s reserve alone instead of raiding like teens in a liquor cabinet. It’s designed for international disruptions. That’s been the standard at least. At the very least though, use the oil for the people who paid for it.

If anyone thought this president was just incompetent, then moves like this should sort them out. Joe Biden isn’t running anything. Whoever is making these decisions is a green, dedicated to punishing the fossil fuel industry and making us less free. They shut down the Keystone XL with an executive order in the first 30 days of Biden’s presidency. This is after nearly 10 years of permits to satisfy environmental ‘concerns’. They’ve consistently shut down new leases for on federal lands, while the prices continue up. At a certain point I have to conclude that this administration hates capitalism and cares nothing about the independence of this country.

That may seem harsh, but energy is the lifeblood of any sovereign nation. Those without it have to buy it. The United States is blessed with natural resources in abundance. Energy is freedom and when you don’t have it you become dependent on others. Borrowers are slaves to lenders. Capitalism and the rule of law provide us with the ability to govern ourselves. It’s a blessing that few countries have and Biden and co. are trading it away willfully. Even if you take a more charitable view and insist that they just don’t understand geopolitics, you have to admit these moves are dangerous.

Some lessons we need to learn the hard way. I mean that in a personal sense but also in a national sense. People without a savings account live to regret it at some point. An uninsured car runs a red light and crunches your old Civic just after you drive it off the lot. The hot water heater floods the basement right after an expensive European vacation. Your youngest daughter needs braces and your discount insurance plan doesn’t cover them. The point is we have reserves for emergencies and we’re bleeding away our security to a ‘green’ cohort.

I wonder if this has always been the point. America has been the strong man in global affairs for the last century at least. Maybe the ‘greens’ are finally getting their way. It’s a tough lesson for those who don’t think left wing radicals are a genuine threat. I just hope we can bring the country back from their grip before it’s too late.

Transhumanism is Anti-God

 

Transhumanism's Tentative Link to Reality

I fell down the transhumanism rabbit hole recently.

 It’s been an idea in my consciousness at least since that Johnny Depp movie in the desert (Transcendence) where they uploaded his brain to a computer. Yeah I know that’s really late. Normally I stay away from topics I barely understand. But if I do it correctly I can talk about it in an innocent ‘what does this all mean’ sort of way. Whenever someone mentions transhumanism I think of Avatar. From the collective conscious to the out of body experiences, it’s a mix of the sacred and the profane.

Humans are sacred, created in God’s image to worship. Worlds not created by God are profane, they lack the signature of the divine.

Transhumanism's attempt to step in where God where left off is centered in prideful notions about the superiority of man. The effort will fail like the Tower of Babel.

I like this definition of transhumanism the best. “The belief or theory that the human race can evolve beyond its current physical and mental limitations, especially by means of science and technology.”

Technology's Takeover

Human’s with artificial brains connected to a supercomputer, that’s my low brow interpretation. The supercomputer is a wealth of information and knowledge that guides us through life. We connect to it, sort of like a search engine and benefit from the increased knowledge. You can see where this theory has some logic. Technology plays an increasing role in our lives. It’s almost inescapable. From voice activated personal assistants to biotechnological medicines like vaccines and genetic seeds for farmers. The leap to putting chips into our brains seems like the next step in the process.

But at a certain point you aren’t operating from your own mind, will and emotions. There is an artificial buffer that interprets and 'corrects' your own thinking. Eventually you’re nothing more than a hybrid person, or a non-person.

Limiting Principle

Why do we need to increase human mental capability? I don’t mean why should we be smarter or how can we make life easier, but why increase the brain power through artificial means? What is the possible benefit, other than escaping to an artificial place, for my life? Certainly there are conveniences like shopping and talking to friends in the metaverse. There are more we haven’t even explored yet. But those don’t markedly chance our world for the better.

It’s an upgraded version of Sims.

The Real Cost

We lose autonomy when we willingly give up freedoms in our life. I understand that modern life is far less free, in the traditional version of the word. True freedom means making your own clothes, building your own house and killing your own food. In modern societies there are precious few examples of people that live this way. Most of us are connected to a global community for basic needs. When was the last time you cut down trees, made 2x4s and constructed a house out of raw materials?

Yuval Noah Harari explains the global community concept in the transhumanism documentary, Humans, Gods and Technology. But to jump from that to a system of interconnectedness on a consciousness level is too big a leap for me.

It's always the controllers that benefit.

Controllers

Covid 19 should have been enough of a wake up for anyone who thought the controllers (elites, technocrats, globalists) knew best. They nearly ruined our economy over a flu like virus. They turned off a lot of sources for people to get jobs and force a vaccine on us. It’s a poor performing vaccine that’s causing untold damage. They either didn’t know what to do or knew exactly what to do.

 The most advanced vaccines from the most advances pharmaceuticals and what did it amount to? A way to make record profits for shareholders. That’s it.  

My problem isn’t with breakthroughs or technology. I’m sympathetic to the difficulty of making money on a drug that takes years of research and development. But it looks like profit and fear drove the narrative on a virus that was survivable for most of us. If we get nothing out of the last two and half years of Covid panic get this, don’t trust others with decisions that affect your health. Especially don’t trust anything with a fear porn quality to it. Also, reject immediate calls for intrusion into your life from ‘experts’.

Transhumanism is anti-God.

There is a lot of talk about creating life through Artificial Intelligence and becoming god-like. That’s not reading something into it either. Here is Zoltan Istvan “We must force our evolution in the present day via our reasoning, inventiveness, and especially our scientific technology. In short, we must embrace transhumanism--the radical field of science that aims to turn humans into, for lack of a better word, gods.”

I feel gross.

God's Idea

Transhumanism isn’t just about living forever; it’s about creating man in a new image. What image is that? An image that doesn’t believe in the Creator or His plan for humanity. The tower of Babel began exactly this way. The people of Mesopotamia wanted to rule over themselves, against any direction from God. God’s idea was to separate people. He told them to spread out and fill the earth, be fruitful.

The arrogance at Babel stands as a warning to anyone trying to usurp the Creator’s plan for humanity. I’m not worried that transhumanism will get far. Pride always goes before a fall and a lot of these futurists who imagine a collective mind melding of all life will be brought low. The seed of this idea is rooted in Lucifer’s pride. He doesn’t create, he only copies.

I don’t fear that we’ll all be operating in a metaverse type environment with augmented brains and soulless bodies. I fear that our hubris will bring God’s wrath and destroy countless lives that rejected His creation.

 “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools…”  Romans 1:21-22

Alito's Big Day: Discarding a Bad Decision

 

Samuel Alito Is the Model of a Principled Justice

Does anyone imagine that Harriet Miers would be a better justice than Samuel Alito?

If the name isn’t exactly familiar I’ll catch you up on some recent history. Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, announced her intention to vacate the court in 2005. It fell to George W Bush to fill the seat. An ostensibly conservative seat, O’Connor was known for her waffle-y decisions. She voted with the court liberals and upheld abortion in Planned Parenthood v Casey. 

This was Bush’s second seat to fill and in the words of the Templar Knight guarding the holy grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade “He chose poorly.”

Recent History

Conservatives were in no mood for a ‘trust me guys’ appointment to the court. They’d seen too many stalwarts become occasional liberals once ensconced in the highest seat. Here comes Bush with a functionary, Miers. She went to law school (Stanford) but lacked a heavy case load from which to reason about her effectiveness. Needless to say it went south quickly. She removed her name and the administration got smart and picked a true defender of the constitution, Samuel Alito.

He’s been the perfect justice in the best way. He’s reliable and smart, but not a ‘genius’ like Roberts. The Chief Justice was always seen as a once in a lifetime legal mind, someone who would shame Aristotle. But Roberts is exhibit A in why we don’t need brilliant people on the court. We need principled judges with a clear understanding of the constitution’s restrictive nature. A long record and the correct interpretation is the only way to pick. It’s possible that Miers would have been a great choice too, but her nomination was risky.

 Alito was a concrete choice because Bush couldn’t afford another poor one.

Alito won’t reinvent the wheel but he will stand on principles. He also won’t get lost in his own genius like the Chief Justice  and write half measured opinions, Obamacare anyone? Even in the most recent case he ruled in favor of the Mississippi law but disagreed with overruling Roe.

Sound Reasoning

“The constitution does not confer a right to abortion”. That’s always been true. Samuel Alito finally put it in his opinion today on why the court overruled Roe v Wade. It’s a straightforward opinion from the justice who is the model for future picks on the court. I can’t read too far into court opinions on case law before I doze off like an 8 week old retriever that’s been run around the block. Latin phrasing and legal logic are not my forte, but in such a monumental case I’ll try to keep up.

Samuel Alito did two important things in overturning the Roe v Wade debacle. First, he threw out the shaky reasoning for all time that abortion was always based on. There is no inherent right to privacy (Roe) or a right to avoid an “undue burden” (Casey) that extend to abortion. The foundations were a combination of misunderstood legal opinions and historical inaccuracy.

Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.

The second and practical thing he did was dump this whole mess on the states, which is where is should have been in the first place. From the beginning SCOTUS had to draw time lines around trimesters and viability. Progress in scientific breakthroughs make these difficult legal problems to rule on. Hospitals can keep pre-born babies alive at much younger states of development than before. So what does viable mean and should the court really be changing standards of phrases and interpreting stages of life?

 He sums up this line of reasoning “The court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate those disputes...”

Mississippi's Law

The case before the court (Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization) was whether or not Mississippi could limit abortions to 15 weeks. State officials really wanted the court to toss out Roe altogether and allow the states to put forth their own laws. Or in some cases, ban the practice altogether. Jackson Women’s Health Organization wanted Mississippi’s limit on abortions to be lifted. Lower courts had agreed with the abortion provider and struck down earlier appeals.

Alito and the other conservatives on the court (Thomas, Cavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett) saw a chance to undue an egregious error.

The Left is upset by the lack of respect for stare decisis but doesn’t see the irony in Roe being enacted without any previous legal cases allowing it. The best they could find is opinions in legal journals and a concocted right to privacy that supposedly extends to the unborn child. Alito makes an excellent case the Roe v Wade was such a stretch that no decision prior to the ruling could be pointed to. To the contrary, 46 states had laws that criminalized abortion “however and wherever performed”. Some made exceptions for to save the “life of the mother” should it be necessary.

Conclusion

For all the complaining from the 3 Left wing justices about tossing out precedent, their logic is laughable. Alito thinks so too. “The dissent argues that we’ve abandoned stare decisis but we’ve done no such thing, and it’s the dissent’s understanding of stare decisis that breaks with tradition.”

In other words, Roe v Wade was concocted more than interpreted. The opinion from Samuel Alito shows why a solid understanding of the constitution and moral center is better than a genius pick any day.

He’s been waiting a long time to write this opinion; we’ve been waiting a long time to read it.

Thankfully the Right held out for a better option than Harriett Miers.