Posted on 07/21/2015 3:40:08 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Gallup published in late July a poll that showed that Republicans strongly disapprove of the Supreme Court, in stark contrast with Democrats. This ought to be a rallying cry for Republicans going into the 2016 election.
No institution in American government has been as destructive and arrogant as the Supreme Court. Until we unwind the anti-constitutional arrogance of power this court has seized for itself, the problems of our political system cannot be solved.
The problem of a Supreme Court that takes upon itself paramount power in our constitutional framework goes back to the early days of the republic. None of the Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court should have the power to interpret the Constitution. Jefferson believed that a simple vote of Congress was enough to overturn a Supreme Court decision, and when the Supreme Court grabbed supra-constitutional power, Jefferson warned: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary that they may twist into any way they please.”
The Supreme Court, in large measure, caused the Civil War by declaring in Dred Scott that blacks in America, like unborn children in America under Roe v. Wade, had inherently inferior civil rights. If the usurpation of power by the court seems like a recent problem, here what Justice Curtis, the only Supreme Court justice to resign as a matter of principle, wrote one hundred and fifty-eight years ago in his dissenting opinion in Dred Scot, the decision that caused him to resign:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Even though it was a theoretical problem from way back, people let it ride because for a long time, the agreement in American morality was very great.
Now that the moral shark has been jumped numerous times, and finally in a way that will get in our face, the people may wake from their torpor.
Getting the right people onto it is important, but also important is not keeping the wrong people on it.
Through multiple administrations, including ostensibly conservative ones, not one iota of Roe v Wade has been repealed. The leftist agenda has gone ahead at full press. Congress passes the buck to the SC, the SC can’t be held accountable as they have lifetime sinecures. If we don’t get a true conservative in the White House, and one who knows his appointees through and through, and get enough so-called conservatives in Congress to pass the appointee, what do we do? It seems to me that Roe v Wade tells the story.
And not only Roe v Wade, but the fact that the political leadership in “sanctuary cities” aren’t prosecuted for breaking the law of the land, for years now, and that the “justices” could have the gall to deliberately find a “right” for sodomites to “marry”, when they already had an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is and has been since mankind has been on earth.
How do we ever get sodomite “marriage” repealed? They’ve never repealed any decision in recent history, as far back as Roe v Wade. Any time the left wins on issue, the “issue is settled”, though it wasn’t “settled” through three proposition votes expressing the will of the people in California, of all places.
Marriage didn’t change; what changed was government, which went from a steward of that to a steward of a farcical abstraction which is being called by the same word.
Also:
Repeal The 16th and 17th Amendments
Especially the 17th
Number of ways including: Constitutional amendment, change in court makeup and new case looking at the issue from a different angle.
It would be possible to make it more reflective of the people, but it is still the responsibility of the people to remain sane. If they lose their sanity, then the resulting destruction is their fault.
[[Gallup published in late July a poll that showed that Republicans strongly disapprove of the Supreme Court,]]
Really? Then why aren’t they calling to have them impeached?
Stuck in inertia... not my yob mon
That is true
The Court is an important issue, but I don’t think we want to emphasize it. I’d rather elect President Cruz and then have the low-information liberals realize that he will restore the rule of law. If we warn America’s enemies, they will be more likely to vote.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
They’re likely to scream about the tea leaves anyhow. In the long run, being forthright is the best policy.
USA: Adopting policies and laws that ensure self-destruction
It is a basic truism that when 5 Federal employees in black robes can reverse centeriese of written law, understanding, and practice to the effect no one untill just 13 years ago was in compliance with thier ‘new law’ that there can be no Constitution of law. But merely the arrgoances of olgarchs.
The unfortunate reality is we eyther resit nullify, and overturn edicts like this or there is not Rule of law in this country. That is the stakes like it or not, supporter of the case or not.
I for one actually disagree with most on Dread Scott, and agree with the court but not with what people said the court did which of course would have been clearly unconstitutional. What I agree with is that the Territory of the United States did not have the authority to free a slave by act of its laws as such laws were limited by the bill of rights, and that slave’s terms of bondage were subject to property.
If Dred Scott simply had brought his case before the Illinois State Government under which he had also resided he would have had a good case as Illinois is not bound by such domestic restrictions as Washington.
But what the court said on the grounds that he could never be a citizen was patiently not written, and provably not true, and there were already such citizens. it was simply not within the power of the Federal laws to grant such citizenship. That requires a State, and Illinois could have done it.
Thus I agree with the outcome of the case but not the constitutional edict.
“The Court is an important issue, but I don’t think we want to emphasize it. I’d rather elect President Cruz and then have the low-information liberals realize that he will restore the rule of law. If we warn America’s enemies, they will be more likely to vote.”
Im not entirely sure that is possible.
We should not require or desire a president to ‘restore the rule of law’ simply becase even if he did the ‘rule of law’ would then become depended upon there being a willing president. Obama of all presidents prove that is not necessarily going to be the case.
If there is to be ‘rule of law’ in this country it must be insisted upon and enforced from the ground up by our state and local governments, as well as congress and every other party involved. When the ‘rule of law’ becomes depended upon the cooperation or consent of one man or group of men it ceases to be ‘rule of law’.
"No institution in American government has been as destructive and arrogant as the Supreme Court."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
I respectfully disagree with the author of the referenced article concerning the Supremes being the most destructive institution in the federal government.
The bottom line, imo, is that the nation has been suffering the effects of unconstitutionally big federal government, particularly since the FDR presidency, as a consequence of what I refer to as 17th Amendment gridlock.
More specifically, regardless that the Founding States gave the power to remove corrupt federal government “leaders” from office, the problem is that the post-17th Amendment ratification Senate has basically refused to do so, the corrupt Senate actually protecting activist justices as well as lawless presidents.
Look at it this way. Not only does corrupt Senate now regularly screw the states that the Founding States had established the Senate to protect, the Senate doing so by working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass bills which steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers and state revenues associated with those powers, but consider the following.
The Senate then finishes its dirty work by confirming justices who declare the laws established by these unconstitutional bills to be constitutional, lawless presidents not having to concerning themselves with possibly being removed from office for signing such bills into law, activist justices likewise not having to worry about being removed from the bench for declaring unconstitutional laws to be constitutional.
What a racket!
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment effectively nullified the idea of a constitutionally limited power federal government imo, and needs to disappear, along with corrupt senators, lawless presidents and activist justices.
I am more interested in seeing people invested in the Lord than in the mechanics of a particular political solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
