Intentions and motives

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

After reading Mark Steyn’s post, I thought that the relatively recent Australian case,
James Hunter Ashby v- Commonwealth of Australia and Peter Slipper, would be similar. Yes and no; and so I decided to leave it for later, or to more qualified people. It is a legal vipers’ nest and deserves proper, qualified and critical consideration. Also, to the best of my knowledge, it might be a subject of an appeal. It does deal with motives of the parties to legal proceedings and it would seem at first glance that, as under the old equity maxim – he who comes into equity must come with clean hands (similar to ex turpi causa non oritur actio / Jones v.- Lenthal (1669) 1 Ch.Ca.154) – now, into our politically correct jurisdictions, you must come with a “clean” mind. Impure thoughts are no longer legally acceptable – shades of sharia?

Interestingly, both Federal Court of Australia Ashby and US Supreme Court United States v.- Windsor legal proceedings involve homosexuals and what used to be called unnatural sexual practices, albeit now almost compulsory, though of practical interest to only less than 3% of population and 80% of journalists.

The ending of Mark Steyn’s post:

Just when you thought the day couldn’t get any more momentous, the Supreme Court weighed in on same-sex marriage. When less advanced societies wish to introduce gay marriage, the people’s elected representatives assemble in parliament and pass a law. That’s how they did it in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, etc. But one shudders to contemplate what would result were the legislative class to attempt “comprehensive marriage reform,” complete with tax breaks for Maine lobstermen’s au pairs and the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents to verify business expenses for page boys from disparate-impact groups. So instead it fell to five out of nine judges, which means it fell to Anthony Kennedy, because he’s the guy who swings both ways. Thus, Supreme Intergalactic Emperor Anthony gets to decide the issue for 300 million people.

As Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben so famously says in every remake, with great power comes great responsibility. Having assumed the power to redefine a societal institution that predates the United States by thousands of years, Emperor Tony the All-Wise had the responsibility at least to work up the semblance of a legal argument. Instead, he struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that those responsible for it were motivated by an “improper animus” against a “politically unpopular group” they wished to “disparage,” “demean,” and “humiliate” as “unworthy.” What stump-toothed knuckle-dragging inbred swamp-dwellers from which hellish Bible Belt redoubt would do such a thing? Well, fortunately, we have their names on the record: The DOMA legislators who were driven by their need to “harm” gay people include notorious homophobe Democrats Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the virulent anti-gay hater who signed it into law, Bill Clinton.

Oh, please, judge, my intentions are good, oh, please don’t let me be misunderstood:

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in America, Australia, Law, Socialism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Intentions and motives

  1. Treminer says:

    Even the judiciary is dumbed down. There is no hope now.

  2. Pauline Hann says:

    You don’t expect judges to be honest and intelligent, or do you? They are the product of the leftist.liberal academia, for Christ’s sake.

  3. rhyodens says:

    We’ll never know the full truth. So many dishonest people with something to hide!

  4. Proteas says:

    Very useful info. Hope to see more posts soon, sons!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>