Supreme Court Justice

The judicial branch of government is capped by the Supreme Court where the Justices exercise their influence on a case by case basis.  Historically, the Justices keep a low profile sequestered behind their loyal clerks and private environs.  They wield tremendous increasing power of the Federal Government and since the Civil War over every aspect of American life. The best proof of this is the recent decision that upheld Obama’s redefinition of marriage.  Many may never personally acknowledge it, because it is contrary to thousands of years of tradition, practice, religion, law, and common sense, but for American legal purposes it is done.  States issue marriage licenses as they do most other licenses, because our Constitution leaves all matters not specifically provided for in the Constitution to the states.  Simply following this principle would resolve many problems, limit the ever-increasing size and invasiveness of the federal government, and restore the Supreme Court to its proper bounds.  However, constitutional convention or citizen revolt may be the only avenues left to those who interpret the Constitution as it’s words say.   Moreover, many fascist socialist, once referred to as Liberals, don’t accept any fixed meaning to the constitution and would never accept clarification provided from a constitutional convention.  Americans obtained freedom from tyranny of British Royalty, but how can it preserve freedom from government tyranny without the constitution that was written to guarantee it.

The Justices on the supreme court are generally just men and women who often succumb to a desire to “do good” as they see it.  Several recent articles exist that explain and document the “liberal” shift in Justices on the High Court.  There is no mention, evidence or suggestion of a “conservative” shift.  That alone should be a wake up call to everyone.  Martin-Quinn scores track the leanings of justices and as everyone knows, many justices make dramatic moves toward liberalism, for example, Justices Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Rehnquist, and Blackmun, all of which were thought to have been conservative or at least neutral when appointed.  Now, it appears that Chief Justice Roberts is on a path to liberalism.  It is interesting that he publicly objected to President Trump’s acknowledgment of this liberal slide that exists in the court.  Justice Roberts denied that any Justices were loyalty to a judicial interpretation held at the time of their appointment.  President Trump used a more colloquial description, but he was simply acknowledging a historic reality.  On the contrary, Justice Roberts made no objection when Justice Ginsberg, unethically stated, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” in a Times interview.  She went on to say, ” He is a faker.”  “He has no consistency about him.”  “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment.”  “He really has an ego.”  “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?  The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

There is no requirement that presidential candidates make their tax returns public.  Ginsberg has prejudiced herself, revealing extreme bias against Trump, and should recuse herself from any case with which Trump is directly connected.  Yet, where was Roberts criticism of this unprecedented public outlast against a presidential candidate?  Justice Roberts was expected to recognize that Obamacare, as designed was unconstitutional, particularly given that it was strictly not a tax.  Instead, he performed some contorted judicial yoga, declaring that the laws individual mandate was a constitutionally allowed tax, (contrary with every fact filed in the case that it was not to be a tax), siding with the liberal bloc and saving Obamacare.

What causes this frequent liberal shift among Justices?  One cause is deception regarding their true judicial perspectives before their confirmation.  They are well-practiced in appearing independent, so they keep it up until they reach the top high court.  Another is activism or wanting to “do good”.  For the liberals this is acceptable, as long as it is liberal activism. Moreover, liberals believe they are good and only possess a proper understanding of what is good.  Not even the constitution can limit what they think is good.  Most of the evils and socialistic failures in our government and society spring from this cause.  Another cause is from a biblical source, “Bad company corrupt good morals,” (1 Cor. 15: 33).  All the justices meet together and the liberal bloc is a source of twisted thinking, their commitment to following the fascist dream is unwavering.  A constant diatribe of such ideology will corrupt it’s hearers.  The Supreme Court has a history of making many horrible decisions, particularly as they relate to social issues about which they have no legitimate Constitutional basis upon which to rule.  We all are subject to making mistakes and being deceived, therefore it is essential to have a guide outside our own rational thinking.  The Judeo-Christian values contained in the Bible is that guide for American Government and society. These principles are also in the founding documents and history validates their truth, virtue, and necessity for the American way of life, government, and prosperity.  When a land falls into the hands of the wicked, he blindfolds its judges. ” If it is not he, then who is it?” (Job 9: 24).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s