alternative news

SUPREME COURT INJUSTICE ROBERTS APPARENTLY AT IT AGAIN?

September 14, 2012 By Joseph P. Farrell

Supreme Court Injustice John Roberts is apparently at it again, uttering such looney eugenicist nonsense that it is difficult to qualify them as resembling more the Supreme Court Injustices of the Looney Left on that body, or those of the Romping Right. Did this little find that Mr. V.T. shared with me, and see if you can see what I saw (I admit, when I read it, I literally declaimed "You've got to be kidding!" to myself in this otherwise empty office):

The Courts Will Soon Decide If Police Can Sample Your DNA Without A Warrant

As the reader will have noted, this pithy little bit of Fascist drivel was posted under Business Insider's Gesetz und Ordnung section, where the following two statements popped out at me:

"As Moser puts it in the Recorder:

"'In the age of smartphones, GPS and the prospect of ever cheaper ways to sequence an entire human genome, it's no small task to interpret the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.'

"On one hand, as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robertspoints out, collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent felonies 'provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the general population.'"(Boldface emphasis added)

Say what? Uhm...could you run that by me again, Mr. Chief Injustice Roberts, uhm...I mean,....your lordship? Sir? Please?

Kidding aside, I hope you caught the implicit eugenicist premise in Roberts' remarks, for it has long been a premise of the American eugenicists since their early days at Cold Harbor that the "lower" classes were somehow genetically defective, and that criminal behavior could indeed be genetic in basis to some degree. All the better to know such things beforehand, and to collect as much biological data as we can, the better to prevent violence and cull the heard. Criminal behavior is genetic. "It's in the genes," as Mortimer Duke of Trading Places would say.

It might indeed be to some extent, but the real problem, as I see it, with Injustice Roberts' remarks, is the potential for the gathering of a genetic database by law enfarcement in some sort of Philip K. Dickian Department of Pre-Crime, and if one showed certain genetic markers, one might be tempted to remove potential offenders from the general population. Coming from a man heading an institution so nutty and with a track record of nuttiness, an institution that once told us that black persons were only "three fifths" of a person, this isn't a very promising statement.(But at least we can be thankful that it is at least consistent with the kookiness we have come to know and love from the Supremes.)

And we can all at least look forward with some anticipation to the somersaulting and perhaps even humorous Hegelian exercises of twisted linguistic gymnastics that will doubtless issue from Injustice Roberts' pen if he uses such implicit eugenics logic in his forthcoming decisions and "opinions." And I will read it with the same spirit of wonder and  appreciation with which I read and contemplate the Dred Scott decision.

***

..."No Mr. President, it's pronounced 'NOO-clee-uhr."

"That's what I said...NOO-kyoo-luhr."

"No...'NOO-clee-uhr."

"I said that, 'NOO-kyoo-luhr.' Go away Karl, you're confusing me."

See you on the flip side...