By Charles Lewis, South Carolina CSG
Student
Over the course of the last six decades
only one Supreme Court appointee of a president representing the party of the
American Left has veered ever so slightly from the progressive party line on
any case of significance. That
individual, Byron "Whizzer" White, was named to the
Court by John F. Kennedy back in 1962.
Among those few cases where White departed from his voting pattern there
is not a single instance that his deviation involved a deciding vote.
On the other hand, the list of "Republican"
Supreme Court appointees over the same period, constituting a majority on the
Court, consisted of far more individuals who "surprise" us by
aligning themselves with the Left wing on crucial cases. The list of such chronic
crossovers on key cases are Earl Warren, Potter Stewart, John Harlan, John
Brennan, Lewis Powell, Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, John
Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts.
By contrast, very few justices tended to
adhere to the Constitution, or "conservative” line, those being William
Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Even within this
latter group of four there have been far more frequent "defections"
than among any of the eleven Democrat-appointed Justices that served during the
same period. In fact, each and every conservative has tended to stray to the Left
with more frequency than the one Democrat "maverick," Byron White.
And not once did he stray from progressive ideology when his would have been a
deciding vote.
For example, Republican-appointed
O'Connor and Kennedy seemed to intentionally take turns giving the Left a
deciding vote, with one of the duo often authoring a scathing "dissent."
Each allowed the other to maintain a “centrist” image while at the same time
gifting the liberal branch with wins in virtually all significant cases.
Below is an incomplete, abbreviated list
of “decrees” rendered by the High Court, some with the decisive assistance of
these pseudo-conservatives. These extra-constitutional opinions relied on
contrived “rights” and tortured reasoning which defied common sense:
• Roe v. Wade, which created a so-called “right” to
abort babies while ignoring the infant’s natural right to life
• Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, striking two provisions of a Texas law put in place for
the safety of women and babies and to prevent the fostering of horrific clinics like
that of convicted triple murderer Kermit Gosnell
• The banning of public
school prayer and Bible reading
• Various decisions removing restrictions
on pornography and calling it “free speech”
• The Kelo eminent domain case, stealing private
property for unconstitutional purposes
• The strike-down of Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
• The banning of all state and local sodomy
laws
• The legalization of American flag burning
• Overturning the will of the people and
their state referendums, as in California's Proposition 8
• Taxpayer-financed schooling for illegal aliens
• Welfare for illegal aliens
• The wild expansion of federal authority
under the pretext that virtually all commerce is "interstate"
The conventional explanations for these
discrepancies are in outcomes. Liberal leaning presidents choose nominees based
on progressive ideology, whereas conservative presidents give more weight to judicial
competence. The record shows that Democratic Senators have let progressive
politics be their guide in the confirmation process, thereby tending to be
obstructionist when a given candidate appears to emphasize the original intent
of the Framers. However, Republicans tend to simply defer to the will of the
given Democrat presidents and ignore the conservative principles they fervently
claimed when they were running for office. As a result, both parties are actually
working in tandem toward the same progressive agenda. This explains why
politicians will not fulfill their responsibility to rein in the High Court
when it clearly violates the Constitution or encroaches on state and local
areas of responsibility.
In ex-FBI agent Dan Smoot's 1962
investigative report, “The Invisible Government” Smoot convincingly details
how the same individuals have traditionally chosen most presidential nominees
for both parties and how the "Democratic Socialist" agenda of the
hard Left guides their choices. It is this liberal ideology that has facilitated
the appointment of out-of-control activist judges.
Of the two 2016 major party presidential candidates
on the ballot November 8th, one was chosen using the illegitimate
process detailed in “The Invisible Government”. More than half of Americans believe the process was
“rigged”, just as the ex-FBI agent described in his report.
However, the opposing nominee did
not appear to have been the first choice of the Republican Party’s
ostensibly conservative establishment. By
a wide margin, the voters selected Trump as their candidate in
the Republican primaries (formerly a non-political outsider) much to the
outward frustration
of the establishment.
It seemed that Trump was a departure from the counterfeit-conservative politicians with
which Republican voters had become accustomed to being saddled, at least in the
recent past.
Trump later announced a slate of potential High
Court nominees, whom he stated he’d selected specifically to break the mold of
the stealth progressives typically appointed by Republican presidents. He
vowed that his list of Supreme Court candidates (vetted and approved by
the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society) would base their decisions
on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
It is clear that an activist, nefarious
Supreme Court has facilitated America's drift to the Left and away
from both freedom and moral decency. It has moved far away from the objectives
of the Framers who made clear their intentions for the High Court were to only
call the balls and strikes, not usurp Congress, the States, and the People by legislating
from the bench.
According to the Federalist Papers, the unelected federal
judiciary is to constitute, by far, the weakest and most restricted of the
three branches. The Framers never
intended federal courts to have authority to strike any and everything produced
by the States, Congress, or the Executive branch as
"unconstitutional" with no checks and balances or reciprocal powers
at their disposal. Nullification was Thomas Jefferson’s default “rightful
remedy” for overreach. Read more on nullification at the Tenth Amendment
Center.com.
Jefferson long ago expressed fears that the Supreme
Court monster might consume its creator, the States, when in 1820 he wrote, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal,
knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and
party, its members would become despots…When the legislative or executive
functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in
their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite
dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society, but the people themselves…” Jefferson went on to write in a separate
letter that same year, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps
of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our
Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a
general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet… I will say,
that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his
arm.”
Since that time, our High Courts have
become a refuge for radical progressives who routinely practice judicial
overreach. They violate the Constitution by erroneously "passing"
horrendous and insupportable "legislation" from the bench, while usurping
the authority of Congress and the People.
With an America teetering precariously on
the brink in a descent into authoritarianism, erosion of religious liberty,
cultural decadence, the unregulated murder and mutilation of the unborn, violation
of borders, terrorism, economic collapse, civil unrest verging on civil war, disrespect
and violence against law enforcement, breached national security, and military
vulnerability, at the very least it behooves Americans to right the ship of the
Supreme Court.
One of the two major party presidential candidates
will appoint a new Supreme Court justice immediately, and up to five
more justices during their term, each of whom could serve as many as thirty or
more years. It is crucial that We the People consider where each candidate
stands on these appointments before we cast our vote.
When Jefferson argued in 1823 against the
erroneous Marbury v Madison Supreme Court opinion in a
letter to Judge William Johnson, he wrote “True,
there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere; but the ultimate arbiter is the people.”
The Language of Liberty series is a
collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative
Team. The authors include administrative
staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The
views expressed by the authors are their own and do not reflect the views of
CSG.
They may be contacted at info@tncsg.org To learn more, go to
CenterForSelfGovernance.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment