Replies

rr: In other words you see the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is.
DD: Jefferson Davis had no use for the judiciary so why is it surprising his fanatics share the same contempt?

I think most Freepers would agree that the federal judiciary, being composed of human beings with human frailties, reaches erroneous conclusions on occasion. Just look back at the comments posted here, after the Obamacare decision by the Roberts court; the legislation was passed by a Congress that insisted it was not a tax, and signed by a president who insisted it was not a tax, but then defended on the basis that it was indeed a tax. If undeniable proof of judicial 'error' is required, simply review any of the high court decisions wherein the court reversed itself (which happens from time to time).

James Madison observed in his 1799 Report on the Virginia Resolutions that some unconstitutional actions by the federal judiciary might necessarily be countered by the individual States, as parties to the compact. It may be worth noting, that such unconstitutional federal actions may become commonplace in the very near future, if American leftists succeed in 'packing' the high court with liberal activists, as is currently being discussed.

In short, any suggestion that 100% of the court's opinions are consistent with the actual written 'law of the land' may amount to seeing "the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is". And recognizing that the high court is indeed subject to error, might perhaps be better characterized as a realistic point of view, rather than just holding the court in "contempt"...

I think most Freepers would agree that the federal judiciary, being composed of human beings with human frailties, reaches erroneous conclusions on occasion.

I agree that there are decisions handed down that leave me scratching my head as well. But the solution is not doing away with the judiciary because could you honestly believe that that Congress or the President wouldn't make more decisions that we feel totally ignore the Constitution?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. No one that I know of is suggesting that SCOTUS is infallible. No one has claimed that.

As to your second paragraph, I would readily acknowledge that we must be eternally vigilant against the corruption and abuses of the left. Who claims otherwise?

"In short, any suggestion that 100% of the court's opinions are consistent with the actual written 'law of the land' may amount to seeing "the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is"."

I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.

The real question is: do you believe that the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the arbiter of our laws with the Supreme Court as the highest court? Apparently kalamata does not (at least when corrected he chose to deflect by changing the subject).