Democrats embrace 'Hypocritical Oath' with overturn of Roe

While the Greeks gave the West its first ethics oath, one applicable to members of the medical profession known as the “Hippocratic Oath,” politicians today seem to embrace a very different oath – one lacking an ethical mandate – which we will call the “Hypocritical Oath.” Liberal politicians are especially adept at “honoring” this oath, as most recently demonstrated by disciplinary action taken against retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Gary Volesky.

Volesky, a Silver Star recipient for gallantry in Iraq – whose combat experience was sought out post-retirement to mentor senior officers and students on issues related to wargaming and other military matters – was given a consulting contract with the U.S. Army’s Combined Arms Center. That contract has now been suspended, pending the results of an investigation into a posting Volesky made appearing to mock first lady Jill Biden after her post concerning the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to overturn Roe. v. Wade.

As Roe v. Wade had recognized a woman’s right to abortion under the Constitution, Jill Biden wrote: “For nearly 50 years, women have had the right to make our own decisions about our bodies. Today, that right was stolen.” Volesky’s tongue-in-cheek response was, “Glad to see you finally know what a woman is.”

The general’s comment alluded the hearing of SCOTUS nominee Kentanji Brown Jackson in which she refused to define what a woman is in keeping with the liberal-lemming mindset non-biological males can be “birthing people.” However, it is asserted that Volesky’s comment was a breach of traditional military decorum by which retired officers are not to speak out on partisan political matters.

Volesky’s reprimand reeks of hypocrisy if one considers not only what Jill Biden wrote, but what President Joe Biden has said and where he said it.

Our Founding Fathers obviously designed our government to function on the basis of three independent branches, with checks and balances built into the Constitution to limit unfair overreaching by any one branch. Of the three branches – executive, legislative and judiciary – the judiciary has boundaries imposed upon it that the other two do not.

As the executive and legislative branches are free to exercise whatever “creativity” they can get away with to accomplish an objective, it is SCOTUS that is charged with responsibility for determining the validity of the laws these two branches generate. Thus, for any contested laws coming before it, SCOTUS must determine whether legal justification for their existence is supported, supposedly within the four corners of the Constitution. If nothing within the Constitution’s wording supports a law, such as abortion, the document clearly reserves the right of the states to resolve the issue. In other words, as Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., has put it, justices must “live and breathe the Constitution,” which means overturning Roe vs Wade was appropriate in allowing states to decide whether or not to ban abortion.

However, the Roe v. Wade decision violated this principle. The abortion issue improperly triggered the creative juices of the 1973 SCOTUS members to read into the Constitution a right that was not there. They did so by stretching the meaning of the “due process” clause – precluding arbitrary deprivation of “life, liberty or property” to citizens – thus claiming it included a personal right for women to abort before fetal viability was reached. Such a stretch was dangerous as it opened the door to include numerous other rights never intended by the Constitution’s wording.

Of the three branches, the judiciary is supposedly the most non-political – a position becoming more difficult to defend over time. Its history does have some dark spots. The 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the high court held racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution, accepting the “separate but equal” doctrine, was one. This remained the law for almost six decades until the 1954 SCOTUS case of Brown v. Board of Education overturned it, just like was done with Roe v. Wade earlier last month, as bad law. SCOTUS determined “‘separate but equal’ had no place” in public education, calling segregated schools “inherently unequal.”

Public confidence in our government, and most especially the judiciary, is imperative if society is to function according to the rule of law. While Jill Biden’s post did nothing to promote this, her claim of theft also was wrong. The Supreme Court has not “stolen” abortion rights from women; it has simply said such authority is not within the Constitution’s wording to grant and, therefore, has to be determined by the individual states. Thus, pro-abortionists must now wage their battle at the state level.

Seeking to further stoke the fires of anti-SCOTUS sentiment, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra irresponsibly implied the five justices overturning Roe went rogue just to make women suffer.

Primarily due to such irresponsible attacks, public confidence in SCOTUS dropped to 25% this year – ironically still coming in 18 percentage points higher than public confidence in the Congress trying to undermine it.

But more disturbing than Jill Biden’s comments about overturning Roe v. Wade are Joe Biden’s comments. Coming from a president whom, after a year and a half in office, has been so wrong on so many fronts, we should take zero confidence from his statement that he believed the 1973 SCOTUS had made “the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.”

True to his hypocritical oath, this is the same Joe Biden who, as a senator in 1982, signed a failed constitutional amendment allowing the states to overturn Roe v. Wade and make their own abortion decisions – which is exactly what the 2022 Court has done! But back then he argued the ’73 SCOTUS had gone “too far,” claiming, “I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

Despite this, on July 8, Biden signed an executive order directing HHS to “take additional action to protect access” to abortion pills. It remains to be seen if this allows HHS to circumvent state laws banning the pills, but it allows Biden to toss pro-abortionists a crumb.

Biden outrageously claimed the Dobbs decision “was not a decision driven by the Constitution … not a decision driven by history. … What we’re witnessing wasn’t a constitutional judgment. It was an exercise in raw political power.” Meanwhile, he is establishing an abortion task force to explore how “to protect access to reproductive healthcare” and looking into declaring abortion a “public health emergency” to do so. In a totally unpresidential move, he encourages more protests.

But the president’s most egregious action concerning the SCOTUS decision occurred on July 1 as he addressed our NATO allies in Europe, having the audacity to criticize the Court there. While it is an unspoken rule politicians, and most certainly our president, should never air our dirty laundry overseas, Biden attacked the Supreme Court for its “outrageous behavior.”

It is the height of hypocrisy to criticize Gen. Volesky for having a bit of fun online at the expense of Jill Biden and liberal wokeism, while holding neither her nor Joe responsible for their derogatory comments that undermine SCOTUS. If anyone is guilty of breaching decorum, it is the president and the first lady.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts