Law Prof Who Ridiculed Barron Trump Denounced Whites, Wrote SCOTUS Sodomy Dissent in 1986
Written by R. Cort Kirkwood
The angry law professor who insulted the president’s son in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday is an anti-white lesbian.
But that’s unsurprising news.
Pamela Karlan, whose appearance is now believed to have been a “catastrophe” for the impeachment cause, wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, a Supreme Court case in 1986 that upheld Georgia’s sodomy statute.
She clerked for Blackmun, who also signed the equally ridiculous Roe v. Wade opinion that legalized the mass murder of the unborn.
The Judiciary Committee, which is considering the impeachment of President Trump, heard from a panel of law professors, but the lesbian lawyer, who lives with a woman “partner,” was the only one stupid enough to bring Barron Trump into the matter.
“So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
The joke attempted to smuggle the idea that Trump is trying to crown himself king into the public’s mind. But it failed, Hinderaker noted, because it only
“would have made sense if Trump had tried to make someone a count, or a prince, or a baron. But obviously he has not done, or contemplated, any such thing.”
Karlan’s “classless and fundamentally stupid attack” on Barron Trump, he wrote, is the only thing people will remember about her testimony.
But attacking teenagers isn’t Karlan’s only forté.
“We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and on love of our country, because we have more reason than they do to love America…. The rich, pampered, prodigal, sanctimonious, incurious, white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere in the world, and they always have. But what about us? Snarky, bisexual, Jewish women who want the freedom to say what we think, read what we want, and love who we do?”
The Stanford law professor seems to do pretty well herself, but that aside, her remarks raise the obvious question: Who is this woman?
She was the sexual subversive behind Blackmun’s dissent in Bowers.
That case centered on a fellow in Atlanta named Michael Hardwick, who was arrested after a cop inadvertently caught him having sex with another man. Hardwick gave attitude to the cop, and so the cop arrested him for sodomy.
When the Supreme Court upheld the sodomy statute, Karlan had the chance to denounce the majority’s “obsessive focus on homosexual activity.”
“The fact that individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others suggests, in a Nation as diverse as ours, that there may be many ‘right’ ways of conducting those relationships,” the clerk’s dissent averred.
“In a variety of circumstances,” it continued, “we have recognized that a necessary corollary of giving individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives is acceptance of the fact that different individuals will make different choices.”
Karlan bizarrely suggested that the choice of a homosexual “lifestyle” is no different than Amish parents who choose not to educate their children in public schools, but in any event, the point was this:
“The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution’s protection of privacy.”
For his part, Blackmun admitted that Karlan was the ventriloquist and he was the dummy.
Writing in Legal Affairs, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer David Garrow explained that Karlan not only wrote the dissent, but also directed Blackmun in framing it publicly.
Karlan “did a lot of very effective writing, and I owe a lot to her and her ability in getting that dissent out,” Blackmun said for an oral history. “She felt very strongly about it…. I think the dissent is correct.”
And Karlan did more than put words in Blackmun’s mouth. She pushed him to move the announcement from Friday to Monday, and told him what to do.
“I’ve thought a bit about your announcing the dissent from the bench,” she wrote to Blackmun, Garrow reported, “and I think you should do it. The majority’s treatment is a disgrace and it’s well worth making clear to everyone what the case is really about.”
R. Cort Kirkwood is a long-time contributor to The New American and a former newspaper editor.
Courtesy of The New American