Politicizing The Supreme Court Must Stop Now!!

Time to talk about the upcoming Supreme Court announcement. Please note I am nothing but an everyday common man who loves my country, nothing more, nothing less and in turn am extremely fearful as to the course we have been heading on over the last forty years or so. The polarization of the courts must stop now!

In my last post, I posted the following:

“Moron Alert!!! A constitutionalist is not an activist! He or She are in fact people who will adhere to the rule of the law as put forth under our constitution! As such, they will not create laws and rights out of the blue. That is not their job nor has it ever been, yet more and more Congress and Presidents have relied on the courts to implement illegal acts as law. Gets them out of doing their jobs or taking responsibility.

 Rescinding "established law (abortion for example or the Yonkers School case come to mind) is not activism if the so called law first and foremost was not enacted by Congress (if so, it is not a law!).  Same as to rights. The Constitution does not give the courts the power to create new rights (Abortion for example). And yet for years this practice has not only been allowed but in fact pushed forward by the very people who are now yelling for Trump's scalp and more. This goes beyond politics and in fact hits on the hatred the left has for our country and her ideals and I for one have had enough!”

In his book, “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”, (Note: It’s been quite a few years since I read it and it actually might have been in his book “The Tempting of America”. If so, my apologies for the memory lapse as I haven’t had time to re-read them), Judge Bork notes as to the Yonkers School case, while he agreed with the outcome as to the desegregation aspects, the judges involved decided the case quite illegally. The correct outcome would have been to deny the motion based on the rule of law, our constitution but in fact they basically enacted a law! No judge has the right to do that. The Congress should have been told to get off their sorry asses and enact a law if they felt it was needed.

Judge Bork (yes, we know he was against abortion so stop the whining) argued here that as judges, they do not have the right to create rights, which in this case turned into what is called “established law”. 

Abortion? Settled law? Seems to me as Bork said, the court “created a right” rather than reaffirming one.

We are being bombarded with absolute bulls… as to the horrible idea of an “activist justice” by the talking heads and more. I noticed in the LA Times a headline (paraphrasing here, forget the exact words) Will Trump nominate an activist judge? Of course he will. And this mind set along with the “life as we know it will end” garbage coming from these folks as well as celebrities, so called black activists and more is really beginning to get on my nerves, especially as to one’s personal religion and more. 

One also needs to note that the leftist scum as well as far too many so called righties have been sadly if not criminally remiss in not only having the balls to enact legislation for these causes, but in fact abrogating their duties and functions to the courts, something our founding fathers never intended. Far worse, these people openly encourage the justices to not only do their dirty work but in fact while they’re at it break the Law of the Land to achieve goals they do not have the guts to fight for legally as they know their positions are all based on lies.

Below is the President commenting in his weekly address on the nominee. Please note the highlighted portion as this is how one needs to select a justice. No litmus test of any kind is needed except one thing., that being that a justice adheres to the Law of the Land also known as the Constitution and that in turn he or she realizes they do not have the right to enact law or establish a right. That is the job of Congress!

“One of the most important decisions a president will ever make is the decision to nominate a justice to the United States Supreme Court.

Last week, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his decision to take senior status. I was greatly honored when Justice Kennedy came to the White House to meet with me. America is truly grateful for Justice Kennedy’s lifetime of distinguished service. He has given me a great responsibility to choose a worthy successor.

Last year, I was proud to appoint Justice Kennedy’s former law clerk, Neil Gorsuch, to the Supreme Court. Over the last year, Justice Gorsuch has embodied the most sacred principles of the court, making impartial decisions based upon the Constitution.

In choosing Justice Kennedy’s replacement, my greatest responsibility is to select a justice who will faithfully interpret the Constitution as written. Judges are not supposed to re-write the law, re-invent the Constitution, or substitute their own opinions for the will of the people expressed through their laws. We reject judicial activism and policymaking from the bench. The faithful application of the Constitution is the bedrock of our freedom, the foundation of our society, and the linchpin of our government. The American system tasks Congress with writing the laws, the executive with enforcing the laws, and the judiciary with issuing neutral judgments based upon those laws and the Constitution we have sworn to protect.

In choosing a new justice, I will select someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.

I look forward to making an announcement soon so that we can further strengthen and protect liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, and God Bless America.”

My apologies here because I forget exactly where I saw the below to acknowledge as such:

In a talk at the Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute, Barrett noted that “Voters and people generally see the headlines in newspapers: ‘Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage,’ or ‘Court strikes down Texas abortion restrictions,’” arguing that this sort of coverage “leaves voters with the impression that justices and judges are just casting votes based on the policy results they prefer.”

According to Barrett, then a law professor, politicians help feed this misperception:

“To say ‘I want to appoint someone who is pro-life’ or ‘I want to appoint someone whose primary focus is protecting minority rights,’ the candidates are talking to their bases and talking to the electorate and saying ‘signal, I’m going to put people on the court who share your policy preferences,’” muddling the perceived function of the judiciary.

“I think that’s not the right qualification for a justice. We shouldn’t be putting people on the court that share our policy preferences. We should be putting people on the court who want to apply the Constitution.” 

Although this seems lost on many politicians and journalists, Barrett emphasizes a critical point here: The duty of the court is not to advance or impede upon a certain political agenda. A textualist in the mold of former Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Neil Gorsuch would bind himself or herself with the written intent of the Constitution, rendering warnings that the court will evolve into a super-legislature of conservative policy all the more unfounded.

This isn’t to say that Supreme Court rulings on issues like abortion or affirmative action won’t be overturned in the future, but rather than resulting from a political agenda, the decisions would follow from the court carefully deciding that it overstepped its authority in a previous ruling. 

Although this won’t comfort those with a more activist view of judicial authority like Toobin and Warren, the court would be keeping in line with its actual purpose: applying Constitutional and statutory law with its intended meaning. 

Wise words from our President and Mr. Barrett. The courts for years have overstepped their boundaries and society has suffered greatly. The National Review has the following article today:

“Why Should a Single Federal Judge Be Able to Make Law for the Whole Country?”

Moron alert! Wrong question!  (although the Review has also gone remiss on some of their assumptions). 

The question should be Who or what in the world gave any judge the right to make law?!

Until such time the electorate and in term our elected officials, as well as the co-opted media address this question, this country is toast! 

A justice must be selected with the willingness to rule under the laws of our land. They must if at all possible put aside their personal feelings and such. Yes, they are humans but none the less they must try to do that!

As we go forward, the Senate, as they conduct their hearings (and let’s not let the RINOs off the hook here) will in fact put out their litmus test questions demanding not only how they would want a justice to rule but in fact wanting to know in advance where the nominee stands on the issues, something they have no right to know! 

Will you adhere to the Law of the Land as put forth by the Constitution when you rule on a case? Pure and simple! I do not agree with many of our laws as enacted by the morons we elect, but once legislated and signed, they are the law. The Court’s job, if asked is to determine said law is Constitutional! That’s it. If so they can strike it down. 

In Yonkers, courts in effect created a law. As Judge Bork said, the outcome might have been correct, but the Court did not have the right to create law! That was up to the legislatures and we all know that over the years, Congress (especially the Dems but guilt on all sides)are more than willing to shrug of their duties so as to keep attention from themselves. As such we have these activist courts.

I see one Dem is actually advocating expanding the Court to 15 and “packing” it. WOW. Roosevelt all over again. Forget everything else on that but remember the political angle because in the end this is what it is all about, achieving a political outcome at any cost, legalities be damned.