[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Why the Supreme Court is not Supreme
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 31, 2015
Author: to follow
Post Date: 2015-08-31 20:34:44 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 955
Comments: 18

townhall.com

Why the Supreme Court is not Supreme

“Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”

– The Heritage Foundation

To vocal opponents of judicial activism, this comes as little surprise. The U.S. Supreme Court has suffered a major credibility blow in the wake of its politically motivated 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges “gay marriage” opinion. In it, they presumed to do the impossible – both redefine the age-old institution of natural marriage and to give this fictional definition precedence over freedoms actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights. According to Rasmussen, only “36 percent of Likely U.S. Voters still think the high court is doing a good or excellent job.”

Incredibly, even the Chicago Tribune had this scathing assessment of the high court:

“We must confess we are shocked at the violence and servility of the Judicial Revolution caused by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. We scarcely know how to express our detestation of its inhuman dicta, or to fathom the wicked consequences which may flow from it. … This decision has sapped the constitution [sic] of its glorious and distinctive features, and seeks to pervert it into a barbarous and unchristian channel … Jefferson feared this Supreme Court, and foretold its usurpation of the legislative power of the Federal Government. His prophecy is now reality. The terrible evil he dreaded is upon us.”

As many of us warned, this opinion is already being used to crush Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This was not lost on the Tribune, which added, “To say or suppose, that a Free People can respect or will obey a decision so fraught with disastrous consequences to the People and their Liberties, is to dream of impossibilities. No power can take away their rights. They will permit no power to abridge them.”

The New York Tribune was equally dismissive: “The decision, we need hardly say, is entitled to just as much moral weight as would be the majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room.”

OK, I’ll come clean. The above quotes are not in reference to Obergefell. But they might as well have been. These quotes addressed the Supreme Court’s equally illegitimate 1857 Dred Scott decision. Whereas, in Dred Scott, the justices defied natural law and presumed a “right” for whites to own blacks, the court’s 2015 Obergefell decision likewise defied natural law and presumed to deconstruct and redefine the institution of marriage.

Both decisions are illegitimate, and here’s why. For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:

A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution; Some prior court precedent; History and the Common Law; Our cultural customs or traditions; Some other law enacted by Congress. As the high court’s four dissenting justices rightly observed in Obergefell, the “five attorneys” who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.

The same was true of Dred Scott.

And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.

As President Andrew Jackson famously quipped of a Supreme Court opinion he thought usurped his executive authority, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

After the Dred Scott decision was released, Sen. William Pitt Fessenden, R-Maine, who later served as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of treasury, said this: “[It is charged] that I am undermining the institutions of the country by attacking the Supreme Court of the United States! I attack not their decision, for they have made none; it is their opinion.”

Over the last few decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine unelected lawyers are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything, and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.

This flies in the face of the framers’ intent. It’s also the very unfortunate reality under which we live. It is fully within the constitutional authority of the other two branches of government to rein in these judges gone wild.

Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

Still, it’s not Republicans alone who must halt this judicial imperialism. Freedom-loving Democrats, to the extent that such animal yet exists, must also join the fight. After the Dred Scott opinion, they did.

“[F]orthwith we are told that the Supreme Court of the United States has become the appointed expounder of Democratic principles. Since when?” asked Sen. George Pugh, D-Ohio. “Who constituted the judges of the Supreme Court the makers or expounders of Democratic principle? Certainly not Thomas Jefferson, who pronounced them the sappers and miners of the Constitution; certainly not Andrew Jackson, who told them he would interpret his own oath, as well as his own principles, according to his views of the Constitution. … When we get to going by courts, it seems to me we have departed from the whole spirit and principle of the Democratic Party.”

My, how the Democratic Party has changed.

In the vast majority of their writings the Founding Fathers were explicit that the judicial branch of government is effectively the weakest of the three. Regrettably, such is not the case with today’s modern misapplication. Americans currently live under what is, for all intents and purposes, a counter- constitutional judiciocracy led by nine unelected, unaccountable, black-robed autocrats.

No, five extremist lawyers don’t get to decide “the law of the land.” Only the legislature can do that. The high court merely issues opinions.

And then the other two branches decide what, if anything, to do with them.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that true rights are God-given and unalienable.

Religious free exercise is sacrosanct.

“Gay marriage” is pretend.

And the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

(Note: Dred Scott quotes from Kutler, Stanley I., ed., “The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967), 59.)

Notice anything wrong? Send Silk feedback

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Y'ALL, nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

The article above was written by Matt Barber..

Who pretty well makes the point I was trying to make in our previous discussions: --

No, five extremist lawyers don’t get to decide “the law of the land.” Only the legislature can do that. The high court merely issues opinions. ---- And then the other two branches decide what, if anything, to do with them. ---- The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that true rights are God-given and unalienable.
Our basic rights are unalienable, -- and unamendable. -- They cannot be infringed upon by subsequent amendments...

tpaine  posted on  2015-08-31   20:37:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine (#1)

The article above was written by Matt Barber..

Matt Barber is a jackass.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-08-31   20:39:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nolu chan (#2)

What an eloquent reply. -- Feel proud..

tpaine  posted on  2015-08-31   20:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine (#0)

Why the Supreme Court is not Supreme

Those who don't think it's supreme are in for an unwelcome surprise when a SWAT team shows up at their house to enforce their decision.

rlk  posted on  2015-09-01   1:11:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: rlk (#4)

Those who don't think it's supreme are in for an unwelcome surprise when a SWAT team shows up at their house to enforce their decision.

In the long term the strength of the institutions derives from the respect and consent of the people. One can shore up consent with the propaganda or fear for a while, but then the natural process of erosion takes place.

That is why the governments that turn repressive get weak, corrupted from inside and despised by those who cherished them before.

Yet there are some who believe that if they seize control over the levers of a strong power, they can do as they please. But the levers rot and the state turns into mash.

It takes significant time, about one generation. Such new generation that in their guts they feel the new power as it is, not being diverted by the memory of the more virtuous path.

A Pole  posted on  2015-09-01   5:04:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tpaine (#0)

The 'Marbury v Madison' decision was never challenged by the other branches.It was possibly the 1st case of judicial activism in that they seized powers the founders never intended for them ;thus throwing off the balance of power between the branches. Jefferson warned of the judicial tyranny that would result from the decision. But even Marshall did not imagine how the decision would be used to seize the sweeping powers that the court assumes today.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-09-01   6:47:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: tomder55 (#6)

"The 'Marbury v Madison' decision was never challenged by the other branches."

They probably figured, who better to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Do you realy want a Democratically-controlled Congress interpreting, say, the second amendment? Or Obama?

Who should? The people? Don't get me started.

-- If the U.S. Supreme Court considers some law unconstitutional, re-write the law.

-- If the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the constitution in a manner the majority finds offensive, pass an amendment.

-- Congress can vote to remove justices.

-- By a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court so it doesn't have the authority to hear certain classes of claims.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-01   9:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#7)

Who should? The people? Don't get me started.

Yes much of the fault is with the other branches. Congress didn't convict Samuel Chase or John Marshall. Andrew Jackson threatened to not enforce SCOTUS edicts and then did nothing . Nullification movements went nowhere .

I agree the horse is already out of the barn. Given that it's unlikely that any office will defy the court (except for a county clerk evidently ) ;I favor term limit amendment for both the judicial and legislative branches.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-09-01   10:13:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: rlk (#4)

--- "the Supreme Court is not Supreme"

Those who don't think it's supreme are in for an unwelcome surprise when a SWAT team shows up at their house to enforce their decision. -- rlk

Those who think that swat teams are controlled by the SCOTUS are dreaming.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-01   10:56:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: tpaine (#9) (Edited)

Those who think that swat teams are controlled by the SCOTUS are dreaming.

Swat teams should be controlled by police department officers, admins or appointed officials, and they should always fuction within the parameters of a Criminal Procedural Law (CPL) that is constitutionally tested and sound.

It also has to function within a departments policies and procedures... based on training requirements and many other factors.

Unfortunately for you, YOU don't factor into any of it. lol

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-09-01   11:06:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tomder55 (#6)

The 'Marbury v Madison' decision was never challenged by the other branches.It was possibly the 1st case of judicial activism in that they seized powers the founders never intended for them ;thus throwing off the balance of power between the branches.

MvM wasn't challenged because it did NOT 'seize power'. -- Read it, and you will realize that in effect it says that even the SCOTUS is bound by the supremacy of the principles outlined in the plain words of the Constitution.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-01   11:09:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: GrandIsland (#10)

Those who think that swat teams are controlled by the SCOTUS are dreaming.

Swat teams should be controlled by police department officers, admins or appointed officials, and they should always fuction within the parameters of a Criminal Procedural Law (CPL) that is constitutionally tested and sound. -- It also has to function within a departments policies and procedures... based on training requirements and many other factors.

Amazingly enough, you've finally realized the truth of my position. Congrats for gaining a temporary grip on sanity...

Unfortunately for you, YOU don't factor into any of it. lol

There you go again, off the wall, giggling out loud about a factor not in issue.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-01   11:20:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tomder55, Y'ALL, -- misterwhite is inadvertently right, for a change (#7)

tomder55 (#6) --- "The 'Marbury v Madison' decision was never challenged by the other branches."

They probably figured, who better to interpret the U.S. Constitution? Do you realy want a Democratically-controlled Congress interpreting, say, the second amendment? Or Obama? --- Who should? The people? Don't get me started --- misterwhite

Exactly, --- majority rule, by 'the people', cannot be allowed to infringe upon our basic inalienable rights. The founders thought they had made this quite clear in the Declaration, and the Constitution/BOR's.

Unfortunately, many still don't get the idea.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-01   11:41:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tpaine (#12)

Amazingly enough, you've finally realized the truth of my position. Congrats for gaining a temporary grip on sanity...

I've never said anything different, here or LP... you just hear only what you want to.

Just remember, those CPL's are constitutionally sound because some have been Supreme Court tested.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-09-01   13:05:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: GrandIsland (#14)

Amazingly enough, you've finally realized the truth of my position. Congrats for gaining a temporary grip on sanity...

I've never said anything different, here or LP... you just hear only what you want to

No, every day I hear you back up misterwhites authoritarian/communitarian positions.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-01   14:15:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: tpaine, rlk (#9)

Those who think that swat teams are controlled by the SCOTUS are dreaming.

Yes, but SCOTUS has sway with those that do.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-09-01   14:19:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0)

Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to “check” judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the bench: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Our Republican-led Congress, from a regulatory standpoint, has the absolute constitutional authority to smack down this rogue Supreme Court. Unfortunately, to date, it has either been unwilling or unable to do so.

This is the facile argument. Now let's deal with reality. The Congress has authority to smack down the rogue Supreme Court by limiting appellate jurisdiction. That's true.

But that power is not absolute.

For the Supreme Court has itself opined that it has what amounts to original jurisdiction over matters of the Constitution itself. So, were the Congress to attempt to pass a law removing Supreme Court jurisdiction as to the constitutionality of various acts of government, the Supreme Court would review that very act, the act limiting its jurisdiction, to determine whether or not the Congress exceeded its authority by attempting to limit the original jurisdiction of the court granted by the Constitution.

And while sola scripturalists would cite to the short little list of Supreme Court original jurisdictional authority in the Constitution as limitative, the Supreme Court would ignore all such arguments and reply that its power of constitutional review is inherent and implied by the Constitution in the creation of the court itself.

In other words, Congress can pass laws that restrict the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over certain appellate matters, but the Supreme Court always retains the authority to strike down any particular such restriction as being itself inherently violative of the Constitution, if - in the Courts opinion - it restricts the Court's power to prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws.

There is no legal respone to that. The response would have to be political: one or both branches would have to forcibly violate the Supreme Court's orders on a matter, and then put the question to the test of power: who will the various authorities obey?

Of course, in such a conflict, the answer to that question will depend on the direction of the political winds. After Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas and Southern Secession, there was no opposition party in Congress to act as any check on the Republicans, who themselves were individually weak and very devoted to Lincoln.

So, when Lincoln simply ignored Supreme Court habeas corpus orders, there was nowhere for the Court to turn for redress. The Congress was overwhelmingly populated by Republicans, the Army was serving their Commander-in-Chief in hot battle, and the Commander-in-Chief was the one breaking the law - and doing so asserting that he was taking necessary acts for the prosecution of the war. The Northern public totally rejected the Supreme Court after Dred Scott and Bleeding Kansas, so there was no popular support at all for the Supremes. They wilted into nothingness, and essentially stayed there until they emerged again as a force in Plessy v. Ferguson.

In truth, when one looks at the real history of important judicial review that reversed major political issues, we find that Marbury v. Madison was small beer. The first real case was Dred Scott - a disaster. Followed by Plessy - a second disaster. Then Lochner. The first positive use of the power was Brown and some of the civil rights cases, but then came Roe. And now, the Obamacare decisions.

Pretty bitter fruit, this doctrine.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-01   16:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: tpaine (#15)

I've disagreed, many times with Mr. White... but he definitely has more law knowledge and understanding than you.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-09-01   16:22:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com