Absolutely correct, bb, but your observation takes us away from the rather different point I am trying to establish. Can we gain a little perspective here, and note that the usual hysterical protestations against an ‘establishment of religion’ which we are constantly hearing from a trivial but noisy Left, quickly take on a rather silly appearance when compared to the actual events which would have to occur in a genuinely concerted attempt at an establishment of religion. And that’s assuming the mere seven conditions I listed constitutes an exhaustive list, which I imagine they do not. So anything substantive added to what I’ve already enumerated simply presents us with bleaker prospects.
Furthermore, I think it true, as you say, that a federal religion has, in effect (“effectively already is ”), been established, and not even by Congress, but by a simple majority of nine black robes. I would note what is really an observation commonly made, and state that Congress could not have mustered the votes necessary to pass most of what has managed to get in through the courts. We can then add that what this means is that in certain ways, by several means, we have gone from a representative republican form of government to an oligarchal form of government, composed of nine members, of whom five is a sufficient number to effectively rule.
I would further note that this effectively established federal religion was established, and is being maintained, by the use of the seven features I had outlined previusly.
I had intended to raise this issue as the next topic, but you’ve stolen my thunder [grin], so we may consider the topic covered, and move on.
Ooooooopppps! Sorry, YHAOS -- jeepers, but I didn't mean to step on your toes!
I truly appreciate your insightful observation that the United States has become a de facto oligarchy, ruled by nine black robes on the basis of a simple majority. You wrote:
...Congress could not have mustered the votes necessary to pass most of what has managed to get in through the courts.Indeed. That is the very reason the Progressive Left "prefers" to do things through the federal courts, not the legislative branch.
Last night I came across a copy of a memo sent by Handgun Control, Inc. to its functionaries that demonstrates the tactics the Progressive Left uses to manipulate the courts. I wish I could give you the text verbatim, but I don't have it with me; maybe later on today. It's a humdinger. The jist is they understand they don't have to win in court every time. It is enough to cast the pall of a threatened lawsuit to make things tough for targeted miscreants -- in the instant case, gun manufacturers. Keep them so tied up with lawyers and lawsuits long enough, and you might even bankrupt them. Plus you just might win your case, in which case you get a nice, juicy monetary settlement that further drains the company of resources. It's a "win-win" proposition for "activists" like HCI.
As my friend joanie-f recently wrote on another thread:
…the over-riding purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of government over the God-given liberties of the individual.Senate Democrats care very much about stare decisis because they don't want the "social progress" enacted by the courts to be unwound. This is what makes for such bitter conflict in the matter on confirming conservative judges, of course.That paramount principle has found itself compromised via countless convoluted, self-serving arguments – many of which are known as ‘judicial/legal precedents.’ All that is required to open the door for a myriad of illogical, senseless, dangerous (not to mention politically motivated) judicial rulings is one such ruling. That ruling can -- and often does -- comprise the first microscopic germ upon which successive parasites will feed until they succeed in consuming their host.
The monstrous pyramid known as stare decisis, or case law, has become far more powerful a (n anti-individual-liberty) force in this republic than the Constitution upon which it is supposed to rest.
On that note, I saw about four hours of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing with Judge Roberts. I have a sneaking suspicion that this man -- it looks like it would take an Act of God to prevent his accession to the office of Chief Justice -- is not a "stare decisis ideologue." The sense I got of him is that he loves the law, loves the Constitution. He could be the beginning of a sea-change on SCOTUS and, thus on the federal bench at all levels.
But it'll take a few more conservative appointments; and there will be plenty of blood spilt on the Senate floor before that happens....