Posted on 05/12/2014 10:23:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
While in the vast majority of their constitutionally related writings the Founding Fathers were explicit that the judicial branch of government is effectively the weakest of the three, 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, black-robed autocrats.
Over many 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 men and women 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, but, regrettably, no one, as of yet, seems to have the mettle to do what needs to be done.
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 highest bench in the land: “[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.”
That’s huge. Unfortunately, to date, Congress has been either unwilling or unable to enact such regulations.
And so, when at least five of these nine justices speak, people listen. When they say, “Let it be,” so it is.
That’s why every so often a Supreme Court decision will come along that, for better or for worse, literally shakes our nation to its core. These opinions can have lasting implications that will affect public policy for decades, even centuries, to come.
Frequently, it seems, these justices, each a fallible human being, go desperately awry, ignoring history, case precedent and the very Constitution they’re sworn to uphold. A few examples include the court’s infamous Dred Scott slavery decision, itsRoe v. Wade infanticide decision and its most recent Windsor mock-marriage decision.
Still, as they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. Occasionally, a majority of these nine justices get one right. Such an occasion occurred last week when, in its ruling on the Greece v. Galloway government prayer case, the high court reaffirmed all Americans’ First Amendment right to public prayer – even sectarian prayer – in any government forum. This includes prayer led by government officials, whether acting in their official capacity or their private capacity, and even when praying “in Jesus’ name.”
It’s difficult to overstate the magnitude of this ruling. It has literally wiped away decades of historical revisionism and church-state separatism by secularist judicial activists and atheist groups such as the ACLU, People for the American Way and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
In fact, its enormity is perhaps best measured by these organizations’ utterly unhinged response. For instance, the always entertaining FFRF was quick to suggest a retaliatory “path forward” for all Christ-haters.
On its website, this Christophobic group, headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, posted an essay calling the high court’s decision, “disastrous for state-church separation,” and frantically warned, “This decision could be the equivalent of Dred Scott or Plessy for our [anti-Christian] cause.”
The essay brazenly called for “mockery” of God, summoning atheists to infiltrate any public forum that might open in prayer and then to “voice disapproval … by booing, making thumbs down gestures, blowing a raspberry, or by making other audible sounds signifying disapproval. …”
“Citizens may also abruptly walk out of government proceedings and then make an auspicious re-entry as soon as the prayer has ended,” suggested the group.
The stated goal? “Public mockery and ridicule” of Jesus Christ and all Christians.
Psalm 14:1 observes, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the FFRF for once again proving true these profound words.
A couple days after it came down, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer cut to the heart of this landmark ruling,writing at BarbWire.com, “[T]he Court in Greece v. Galloway changed the standard from ‘endorsement’ to ‘coercion.’ A violation of the First Amendment can now only be claimed if coercion can be demonstrated. …
“The Court swept away with a backhanded swat the ridiculous argument that merely being offended is sufficient to create a breach of the Constitution. Just because someone’s feelings have been hurt does not mean there is some cataclysmic break in the space-time constitutional continuum. In a burst of brilliant, luminescent and concise reasoning, the Court flatly declared what we all know to be true: ‘Offense … does not equate to coercion.’ Feast your eyes on that. ‘Offense … does not equate to coercion.’”
Indeed, this decision also swept away the church-state separatist sand from which the ACLU and other anti-Christian segregationists have built their entire fragile, cultural Marxist platform.
For instance, the ACLU has, in the past, absurdly claimed, “The message of the Establishment Clause [to the U.S. Constitution] is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion.”
Hokum, says the high court:
“The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian.”
“Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable,” concluded the court, “and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views. …”
Of course, we’re not really talking about “adults” here.
We’re talking about liberals.
Congress also has the constitutional power to impeach, convict and remove from office any judge.
To my mind, any judge who injects his own policy preferences into his decisions has committed the greatest “high crime and misdemeanor” possible against his office and the American people.
Who wrote the majority decision. It sounds like Justice Thomas clear logic or a Scalia scolding.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Congress abdicated its duty when a majority of the members decided that getting re-elected was more important to them than defending the Constitution and representing We the People. And, then they spent the next 100 years rigging the system to protect incumbents at all costs.
We are seeing that as the driving force behind all legislation in both parties. But it’s particularly deceitful of Republicans. Democrats were the descendants of the Royalists and have been trying to restore their aristocratic right to be parasites on We the People all along.
What a silly article. This debate has been going on since 1803 with Madison v Marbury and the concept of Judicial review. A basic knowledge of US history would help the writer
I trust the Establishment clause would prevent Congress from enacting any laws that would infringe on practicing the Satanic Black Mass for public perusal.
I'm no fan of the present-day Democratic Party, but that's just silly. The Democratic Party, throughout its history, has generally been the party of those who were the underdogs, or more accurately those who saw themselves as the underdogs in American society.
I think that has changed significantly in the last few decades. I also think we can get farther by pointing out that today's Democratic Party is betraying a largely honorable heritage by turning itself into a conspiracy of the elite and the underclass against America and most Americans than by claiming it has always been what it is today.
Jefferson, Madison and Jackson as secret Royalists? That dog won't hunt.
Your link is to a bill which would allow Congress to overrule judicial decisions. This is a bad idea on many levels.
Much better to limit appellate jurisdiction as the founders intended. A law which said, “The Supreme Court may not review on appeal any State law respecting an establishment of religion, nor any State law restricting or forbidding abortions” would be clear and perfectly constitutional.
What a great idea. Where have I heard that before?
When SCOTUS goes Constitutionally blind as they have increasing during the 20th and 21st Centuries, we the people are not obligated to blindly follow. If we do, then, as Jesus said, both will fall into the ditch. Time for the states and the people respectively to nullify SCOTUS decisions based on extra-or-non-constitutional reasoning that defy the Constitution and overturn long-held pre-20th century precedent.
Which link? There are 5 links including the link to the article
Sad but true, the USG uses SCOTUS as a court to decide internal disputes. The founders did not forcee this eventiality.
It's more like Congress uses the SCOTUS (and federal judges) to enact legislation that congress hesitates to touch, because of unpopularity.
<>Over many decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy.<>
Gee, now how on earth did that happen?
I remember, years ago, seeing a TV ad by a religious group that said “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion”.
In fact, it means exactly that, if by “freedom from religion” you mean that you cannot be forced to have a religion. Religious freedom doesn’t only mean that you have the right to choose your religion, but also that you have the right to not choose any religion at all.
And you have the right to not be forced to participate in any religious expression.
What you do not have is the right to never have to see other people exercising their religions. There are, after all, two parts to the religious liberty clause - establishment and exercise.
“Freedom from religion” does not mean you have the right to not be exposed to other people praying.
But the case hinged on jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of SCOTUS is described in the constitution, and this case was outside of SCOTUS's jurisdiction. On that basis, Marshall said that the SCOTUS was powerless to render a ruling that held the unconstitutional law to be unconstitutional.
The author is missing the brazen lawlessness that has infected and rotted out the very foundation of our Republic. What will the lawless do? All branches of Fedzilla have usurped power to affirm or deny our *unalienable* rights. For example, DOMA didn't restore order and sanity, it gave the government an excuse to redefine natural law (marriage) into something it is not. Strike down self-evident truths, and then recreate sicko definitions of them.
If we continue on the present trajectory, the Obamanation will simply stop tolerating the existence of We the People. Beast.gov will define "We the People" as a terrorist group. On wait...
***A few examples include the court’s infamous Dred Scott slavery decision,***
All people see in this is the SLAVERY issue! They fail to note that the SCOTUS also listed the rights blacks would have if they were granted citizenship.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased,
to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
The Modern Democrat party was founded by Andrew Jackson. (Literally.)
Neither Madison nor Jefferson belonged to the "Democrat" party. Both were founding members of the "Democratic-Republican" party. This was a very different party than what was the later "Democrat" party.
It is widely considered, though somewhat dubiously IMO, that the Democratic Party of today is the lineal descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson.
The original two parties were the Federalists and Democrat-Republicans. The Federalists fell apart during and in the aftermath of the War of 1812, leaving only the Democrat-Republicans.
They broke into two factions, generally called the Democrats and the Whigs, mostly between fans and haters of Jackson. The Whigs fell apart in the 1850s over slavery, leaving the Democratic Party as the sole direct descendant of Jefferson’s party.
The Republicans formed out of the wreckage of the northern Whig and Know-Nothing parties, plus anti-slavery Democrats. Thus it was in essence a new party, not really descended from an earlier one.
The Democratic Party, I believe, has, OTOH, a direct line of descent from Jefferson. Though saying it’s “the same party” is, as you say, not really accurate without a lot of caveats.
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.