home > archive > 2011 > this article


The hallowed Halloween bench: Monstrosity rising

By Michael Moriarty
web posted January 24, 2011

Never in Peter Robinson's distinctively unique program, Uncommon Knowledge, did I feel that title utterly fulfilled until last week. Prior to that I simply considered the program a wonderfully enjoyable introduction to a few of the brightest minds in America.

In a three-way summit between Robinson and two unquestionably brilliant legal minds, Richard Epstein of NYU and Jon Yu of Berkeley,  we encounter such Uncommon Knowledge that to comprehend it demands repeated reruns, back to the top of the episode, then back again.

What is opened for examination (Obamacare), and or autopsy (Bush V. Gore), are the strategies and tactics surrounding a few issues either close to reaching the Supreme Court, or, as Epstein says about Bush v Gore, "You want a rifle shot on this one!".

In the first three segments: Obamacare and gay marriage.

While Jon Yu is the more easily accessible and comprehensible to a layman – therefore, to my mind, the better journalist and teacher – Richard Epstein, after repeated hearings, packs the density inherent within the mind of any Supreme Court authority. Couple that with the speed and clarity of his judicial poetry, as I label it, one sees an almost pure definition of "legal library". Without Jon Yu, however, I would have most likely turned this particular series of interviews by Peter Robinson off.

As it is, I have no reason to doubt that of all Peter Robinson's interviews and programs in the past few years, this was one of if not the most enjoyable.

The three men crackle with excitement over each case or issue cited.

Why I'm so drawn to Supreme Court issues so late in my life is both a compliment to Peter Robinson but an encore to the instincts I had late in my four year experience with the television series Law and Order.

Prior to my disastrous meeting with Attorney General Janet Reno in the Fall of 1993, I had suggested to the producer of Law and Order, that he create a series about the Supreme Court and have my character of Ben Stone eventually make it as a Justice to this "Hallowed Halloween Bench".

Everything about the recent Uncommon Knowledge program supports my belief that if the cast of such a fictional adventure included both a Richard Epstein and Jon Yu, then the eternally opaque image of the Supreme Court and what I consider utterly unconscionable decisions – such as Dred Scott, Buck v Bell and Roe v Wade – would reveal, in detail, the source of America's now profoundly diseased soul.

In short, nothing in American history has so insured the appearance of an undeniably Marxist President of the United States such as Barack Obama as the Roe v Wade decision, the one literally legalizing murder.

America's resigned acceptance of Roe v Wade for 38 years now explains why the United States deserves the likes of Barack Obama and his mentor, George Soros.

Supreme Court jurisprudence makes prudence a subsequently legislated "political correctness". In other words, law students are first and foremost obliged to examine Karl Marx's Dialectical Materialism.

Among the schools of dialectics, here, according to Wikipedia, are a few: Socratic, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, and Talmudic.

The only Christian era or culture which may well have contained dialectics is listed as Medieval. Hmmm … that is subject for an entirely different article.

Returning to my point, lawyers or law professors literally live in not only a dialectical world but within an interior universe of dialectics.

Unfortunately dialectical materialism does not involve the eternal war between Good and Evil. Marxist dialectics is the universe of eternal compromise, the endgame of synthesis, within which, of course, Marxist designs and Marxist goals and Marxist ambitions eventually win over the Judeo-Christian Civilization.


As I said, there is, in Marxism, no Good or Evil.

There only is!

Therefore listening to two brilliant legal minds discuss the possibilities of the Tea Party et al overturning Obamacare?

It is, "What are the odds?"

Weighing the language of the Constitution on one side and the cases pleaded regarding what is or is not "Constitutional" on the other, not to mention the all important ingredient of public opinion which both Epstein and Yu agree is a major factor in Supreme Court decisions?

We then have not dialectics but trialectics!

Despite President Obama's undeniably dialectic mind, he is faced with a Trialectic Supreme Court which weighs opposing forces in court with the all-important and third ingredient of popular opinion.

In light of that, how did the Supreme Court come to the legalization of murder in the case of Roe v Wade?

What level of "popular opinion" was weighed in the Supreme Court's two-trimester definition of what still can only be called "subhuman" or "non-personhood".

Roe v Wade seemed like a considerable risk for the Supreme Court but, so far, so good. The legalization of abortion, after a few, initially violent responses, has stood not only the test of time but the adversity of challenges such as two such efforts in Colorado to amend the definition of "fetal personhood".

Both efforts to save lives in Colorado failed.

To call a human being the equivalent of "non-human" during that infant's first two trimesters is, for me, the lowest of American law school "moral turpitude".

The point of view for such "creativity" is purely seen through Marxist dialectics which, of course, carries no battle between Good and Evil.

Nothing so revealed the inherent evil lurking within the heart of American Privilege (as versus The Privileged of America) than America's relative silence before the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision and the legalization of murder, which is now, as I will intensely repeat, an American Privilege.

After such a display of American indifference to murder, the Progressive Movement is justifiably certain that all their subsequent efforts to hustle and rustle America up into a nice docile and eventually tyrannized corner of the Progressive New World Order will succeed.

 Now we await the Supreme Court decision upon the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

The best case against Obamacare, at least according to Peter Robinson's guests, is that the United States government has never had the right to push Americans unwillingly into the marketplace and force them to buy something.

Government compels only when it involves military service or jury duty.

As was said, "Knock this portion of Obamacare and you don't have to face social security … there will be relatively little political blowback."

Then, of course, we see our guests return to not the dialectical viewpoint but the trialectical juggling match.

Two different philosophies of the Constitution, Liberal v. Conservative, are, indeed, according to both Epstein and Yu, unquestionably swayed by this third cornerstone of American justice: public opinion.

Where do a majority of the American people stand on Obamacare?

While the noisiest opponents are taking up all the headlines in the Circuit Courts, the most important case is wending its way toward the Supreme Court where the final decision must be made. The Supreme Court's most ameliorating hand will, indeed, be on the wrist of the American population, taking a pulse driven by the very divisive stimulant of Obamacare.

The target which the Republican Party's lawyers should want the justices to aim at, if you will forgive the word "target", is "the individual mandate" in Obamacare. That very word "mandate", stretched across the headlines, will indeed sway the jury of public opinion which will, in turn and without question, help determine the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

Americans don't like to be "mandated" to do anything.

American judicial Trialectics of Left, Right and General Public Opinion versus the Obama Nation's hoped for Marxist Left-Right Dialectics will be at work within the Supreme Court decision.

On the other hand, the "general welfare clause", a much broader but vaguer argument, according to our experts, is a consummation devoutly to be wished by the Obama Nation because it "will lose".

The "general welfare clause", according to these experts, has never been bought by the Supreme Court.

"Encroachment" or "unconstitutional conditions" argument is clearer, simpler, more persuasive, and apparently an infinitely more edible headline for the country as a whole than the "general welfare" case.

According to Yu, once your case is on appeal to the Supreme Court you can "shape" the "encroachment" case.

A judicial … uh … "shaping" …  profoundly informed by whatever swells and swelling occurs within America's public opinion.

The final segment of this judicial and wittily judicious dive into the Uncommon Morality of Supreme Court thinking is a lovely taste of brilliance having fun with itself!

None of the three celebrants of American justice, however, forget that Democracy in America is first and foremost, not a dialectical phenomena but a trialectic assembly line in which a government of the people, by the people and for the people explains why America deserves the undeniably "liberal fascism" that now literally erupts and, yes, vomits out of the Obama Nation.

The Supreme Court with Roe v Wade threw out a test balloon for legalized murder; and the People have loved it!

The fruit from that tree of the clearly bi-partisan Progressive Nation can be seen hanging from a monstrosity rising: The Progressive New World Order.\

Inevitably the American People will buy The Progressive New World Order.


They have bought the 38 year-old Roe v Wade decision, haven't they?

The increasingly possible Civil War over abortion may, indeed, occur; however, President Obama's opinion of Abraham Lincoln's real reason for the Civil War – not to end slavery but to save the Union – would be the justification for Obama's prosecution of a Second Civil War.

Pro-life's two-time failure in Colorado makes the Tea Party look more like an anti-Progressive Confederacy than the increasingly strong Union of Progressives under the self-styled Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama.

Despite the intellectual euphoria of these Uncommon Knowledge segments, The Third Leg of public opinion?

Regarding abortion and in tribute to a folk-maxim: "When the third leg go up?! The brain go in the ground!!"

As the soul of Man is denied and buried, we inevitably have, not the third leg, but The Monstrosity Rising!

Or, as W. B. Yeats prophesied almost one hundred years ago: "The Beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born." ESR

Michael Moriarty is a Golden Globe and Emmy Award-winning actor who starred in the landmark television series Law and Order from 1990 to 1994. His recent film and TV credits include The Yellow Wallpaper, 12 Hours to Live, Santa Baby and Deadly Skies. Contact Michael at rainbowfamily2008@yahoo.com.

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story





Site Map

E-mail ESR


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story


Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!



1996-2021, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.