Post-modern philosophy denies absolutes — reality isn’t absolute, only what popular opinion or someone believes at the time. Think that’s absurd? The current occupant of the White House believes firmly in post-modern philosophy, admitting in a speech on the Senate floor concerning the Supreme Court he holds firmly to post-modern philosophy.
… In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled—in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart. [emphasis added]
Note that the current President proposes issues of Constitutional law should not be decided based on the law, but in difficult cases the Supreme Court of the United States should not look to the Constitution, but to “what is in the judge’s heart” — simply put, a denial of the absolute rule of law, and a choice to follow post-modern thought — the denial of absolutes.
Of course, what is in one judges heart may not be in another, thus the law becomes vague and shifting — value relativism. If you think that’s not a good way to decide court cases, you’re absolutely (pun intended) correct.
Using this process the “right” to an abortion is “found” in the Constitution. Of course, using such a vague and ever-changing process means no law can ever mean anything — only what is in the judge’s heart at the time he makes a ruling. It’s a perfect example of the denial of absolute truth using post-modernism.
Of course, the problem arises when some people don’t like what’s in some judges “heart”, and then search for judges not based on fairly applying the law, but how they’ll avoid the law to do what a group or community organizer wants. It’s for that reason so many nasty fights are now fought over judgeship — because it’s no longer about judicial qualifications, only if a person will twist the law to meet what a specific lobbying group desires.
It’s precisely for this reason the fight over abortion rages. No right to an abortion exists in the Constitution, so either the matter is left to the states, or Congress should create legislation.
Of course, that doesn’t happen. Why? It’s easier for a group to sway an activist post-modern judge than convince voters in 50 states.
Mr. Obama firmly comes down in the post-modern, “living Constitution” no-absolutes-exist value-relativism camp where words can be twisted to mean anything, thus they mean nothing.
If this abuse of the commerce clause is upheld, the Constitution will have no real value, as once this precedent is set, it will be referred to in “US Citizens forced to eat broccoli daily” and “when you can flush your toiler” and other later judicial decisions.
“Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Benjamin Franklin responds — “A republic … if you can keep it.”
That’s reality — deny reality at your peril.