Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Usurpation of Power by Courts: Have the 50 States been reduced to one United STATE run by 5 supreme despots?
Bill Federer ~ June 26, 2020

PART 1
Have the 50 States been reduced to one United STATE run by 5 supreme despots?

Though there are 9 Justices on the Supreme Court, it takes only 5 to issue a majority decision.

Popular culture describes America as a democracy.

Scholars clarify it is a constitutional republic.

But in sense, America is neither. It has t***sitioned to being run as a despotism.

Thomas Jefferson warned in a letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820:
"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the DESPOTISM of an oligarchy."

Webster's Dictionary defines "despotism" as: "Absolute and arbitrary authority ... independent of the control of men."

Jefferson added:
"Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so ... and their power (is) the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to wh**ever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become DESPOTS."

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:
"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."

In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the Bostock v. Clayton County opinion, adding gay and t*********red workers to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, condemned the ruling “preposterous” overreach and betraying “breathtaking” arrogance seizing legislative power:
"It is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex ...For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse ... (it) can cause serious psychological harm ...To force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage ... who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female."

The Supreme Court invalidated the will of a majority of citizens in 30 States who v**ed to have marriage be between a man and a woman in the Obergefell vs. Hodges gay-marriage decision, June 26, 2015.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated:
"This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court's most disastrous decisions."

Two Justices, Kagan and Ginsburg , were obliged to recuse themselves as they had participated in homosexual weddings.

They refused, casting a shadow bias, partiality, and illegitimacy, over their opinions.

Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal stated:
"The Supreme Court decision today ... tramples on States' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stated:
"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the States to make this decision."

Former Texas Governor Rick Perry stated:
"I'm a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each State to decide this issue ...Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench, and as president, I would appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written."

Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina , who was the first woman to lead one of the top twenty U.S. companies, stated:
"This is only the latest example of an activist court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be ...I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage. I believe that responsibility should have remained with the States and v**ers where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country."

Justice Samuel Alito stated:
"Today's decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage ...All Americans, wh**ever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum stated:
"The Court is 1 of 3 coequal branches of government & they have an imperfect record. Stakes are too high to cede marriage to unelected judges."

Huckabee stated:
"The Supreme Court isn't the supreme branch ... Five lawyers on the Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than they can the laws of gravity ...I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat ...Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white f**g and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court."

Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called for:
"…an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the States to continue to define marriage."

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio stated:
"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court."

Even former P**********l candidate Barack Obama stated at the Saddleback P**********l Forum, April 17, 2008:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me ... it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Obama stated in an interview with MTV, November 2, 2008:
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

After being elected, he switched his views to aggressively prosecute those opposing the L**T agenda.

Justice Antonin Scalia had stated:
"I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy ...Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court ...This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776 - the freedom to govern themselves ..."

Scalia added:
"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social t***sformation without representation."

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz stated:
"This is not a typical moment in American history ... The last 24 hours at the United States Supreme Court were among the darkest hours of our nation ..."

Cruz added:
"This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths ...I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman ... And also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage."

Franklin Graham stated:
"The court -- since it never defined marriage -- doesn't have the right to redefine it. God gave us marriage. Period. And God doesn't change his mind."

OF THE PEOPLE
"... that government OF THE PEOPLE, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." –Abraham Lincoln, November 19, 1863

Attempting to usurp the role of solver of social ills, Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney gave his infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, stating that s***es were not citizens but property.

President Abraham Lincoln disagreed with that decision, stating in his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court ...The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal."

Lincoln stated (The Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas, 1897):
"The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congresses and Courts."

Dr. Ben Carson commented on how judicial review "has changed from the original intent":
"Dred Scott is a perfect example ... The Supreme Court came up with this and Abraham Lincoln did not agree with it ... It caused a lot of conflict and eventually led to a Civil War."

End of Part 1

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Usurpation of Power by Courts: Have the 50 States been reduced to one United STATE run by 5 supreme despots?
Bill Federer ~ June 26, 2020

PART 2
WAR ON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
If recent experience is any indicator, those who do not embrace this new definition of marriage will immediately be:

• Sued,
• Fired,
• Bullied,
• Boycotted,
• Threatened,
• Called names,
• Driven from the military,
• Accused of being h**eful,
• Have pastors' sermons censored,
• Singled-out for auditing by the IRS,
• Have churches lose tax exemption, and
• Be targeted by the Attorney General for prosecution.

Dr. Carson said:
"I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs."

Franklin Graham warned:
"I believe God could bring judgment upon America ... There will be persecution of Christians for our stand ...Churches and faith-based business should prepare for lawsuits and government investigations. Pastors who refuse to perform gay marriages and preach from the Bible should prepare for h**e crime charges. All dissent will be silenced by the government and the activists ... An overwhelming number of Christians will defy the law."

Mike Huckabee stated:
"This irrational, unconstitutional decision threatens religious liberty -- the heart of 1st Amendment. Congress must act ... The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being ..."

He added:
"The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

Carly Fiorina wrote:
"All our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience of those Americans that profoundly disagree with today's decision."

Senator Rubio: stated:
"The next president and all in public office must strive to protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage. This is a constitutional duty, not a political opinion. Our nation was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is compelled by law to violate their conscience."

Bobby Jindal noted:
"Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that ... This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty."

Jeb Bush stated:
"In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."

As standards of sexual behavior are cut loose from the encumbrances of traditional values, the logical next step would be to legalize:

• Polygamy,
• Incest,
• Group marriages,
• Child brides,
• P********a,
• Bestiality, and
• Any other conceivable behavior.

Indeed, arguments to prevent this progression from occurring are purely arbitrary in their reasoning.

Though presenting itself as an anti-r****t organization, Black L***s M****rs actually has a radical sexual agenda which most supporters are unaware of.

Founded by t***s-activists Alicia Garza, Patrisse Khan-Cullers, Opal Tometi, B*M states on its website, under the heading "What We Believe (accessed 6/26/20):

"We make space for t*********r ... to dismantle cisg****r privilege and uplift ... t***s folk, especially ... t***s women ...We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children ...We foster a q***r‐affirming network ... with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise)."

In 1934, Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin published Sex and Culture, in which, after studying 86 civilizations over 5,000 years, he found a 100 percent correlation between monogamous heterosexual marriage and cultural advancement, and that sexual promiscuity always preceded the decline of a civilization.

Reiterating values accepted since the beginning of recorded history, Franklin Graham stated:
"I'm disappointed because the government is recognizing sin ... This court is endorsing sin ... God gave marriage between a man and a woman and that's what marriage is ...If pastors are going to be forced to provide marriage services for gay couples, I'm not going to do it ..."

Graham concluded:
"I am reminded of something the late Charles Colson wrote: 'If we're not willing to fight this, even to the point of breaking the law, or refusing to recognize the law, then we will lose everything.' Given the choice of obeying God or the government, I believe Christians will obey God -- even if there is hell to pay."

In his 1841 Inaugural Address, President William Henry Harrison warned:
"The great danger to our institutions does ... appear to me to be ... the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others. Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments."

ARE E******NS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY?
Immense effort goes into the legislative process:

• Registering v**ers,
• Campaigning for candidates,
• Manning polling places,
• V**er turn-out,
• Swearing into office,
• Introducing bills,
• Debating bills,
• V****g on bills,
• Overriding vetoes

yet this is all an exercise in futility if a few unelected judges can invalidate the entire process.

For example:
The Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare, was forced through a Democrat-controlled Congress without public awareness, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi admitted in her now-infamous statement "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Thirty-four States chose not to set-up exchanges to administer Obamacare, but the Supreme Court decided in King v. Burwell , June 25, 2015, that the Federal Government could overrule the will of the States. Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent: "It is bad enough for a court to cross out 'by the State' once. But seven times?"

Other cases where government OF THE PEOPLE perished are:

• Arizona v**ed English as their official language, but Federal Judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Prop. 106, March 3, 1997)
• Arkansas passed term limits for politicians, but Federal Judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
• Californians v**ed to stop state-funded taxpayer services to i*****l a***ns, but Federal Judges overruled. (Prop. 187, Nov. 20, 1995)
• Colorado citizens v**ed not to give special rights to homosexuals, but Federal Judges overruled. (Sup. Ct. Romer v Evans, 1992)
• Missouri v**ers defeated a tax increase, but Federal Judges overruled. (8th Circuit, Missouri v Jenkins, Apr. 18, 1990)
• Missouri citizens limited contributions to State candidates, but a Federal Judge overruled. (8th Circuit, Shrink Pac v Nixon, Jan. 24, 2000)
• Missouri passed "A Woman's Right to Know." Governor Bob Holden veto it. Legislators overrode his veto, but a Federal Judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, Sep. 11, 2000)
• Nebraska citizens passed a Marriage Amendment with 70% of the v**e, but a Federal Judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion, May 12, 2005)
• New York citizens v**ed against physician-assisted suicide, but Federal Judges overruled. (2nd Circuit, Apr. 2, 1996)
• Washington citizens v**ed against physician-assisted suicide, but Federal Judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Mar. 6, 1996)
• Washington passed term limits for politicians, but Federal Judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
• Missouri's legislators passed a ban on partial birth a******n Sept. 5, 1999. Democrat Governor Mel Carnahan vetoed it. In a historic session, fifteen thousand citizens knelt in prayer around the State Capitol as the Legislature overrode his veto. Days later Federal District Judge Scott O. Wright suspended the law - and five years later it is still in limbo.

For years a bill to ban partial birth a******n worked its way through the U.S. Congress, being signed by the President Nov. 5, 2003. The next day a Federal Judge suspended the law. In fact, thirty-one States passed bans on partial birth a******n, only to have unelected Federal Judges suspend them.

Thomas Jefferson warned Mr. Hammond in 1821:
"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in ... the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be USURPED FROM THE STATES."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt , June 27, 2016:
"As the Court applies wh**ever standard it likes to any given case, nothing but empty words separates our constitutional decisions from judicial fiat ...The court just makes stuff up to get what it wants.The illegitimacy of using 'made-up tests' to 'displace longstanding national traditions as the primary determinant of what the Constitution means' has long been apparent ... If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result ..."

Justice Thomas continued:
"Muzzling free speech? No problem. Defining marriage? ...Made-up rights don't trump those enumerated in the Constitution. The Court has simultaneously t***sformed judicially created rights like the right to a******n into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not -- and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment ...There are too many legal exceptions for made-up rights. Our law is now so riddled with special exceptions for special rights that our decisions deliver neither predictability nor the promise of a judiciary bound by the rule of law ...
The entire Nation has lost something essential ... We have passed the point where 'law,' properly speaking, has any further application.'"

Fifty-five men wrote the Constitution, but on September 17, 1787, only thirty-nine signed it. Why did delegates Edmund Randolph, George Mason, and Elbridge Gerry refused to sign it? Why did Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution, individuals such as:

Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry. Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, James Monroe, Mercy Otis Warren, George Clinton, Melancton Smith, Arthur Fenner, James Winthrop, and Luther Martin?
Because they did not think it put enough limits on the power of the Federal Government.

The promoters of the Constitution convinced the Thirteen States that if they ratified the Constitution, the first action of Congress would be to put limits on the new Federal Government. There were ten limits -- the First Ten Amendments or Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, over time, the Federal Government usurped power from the States.

Senator Ted Cruz proposed a "retention e******n" for Supreme Court Justices every eight years:
"Every justice, beginning with the second national e******n after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention e******n every eight years ...Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the e*****rates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court ...This week's opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great ... Enough is enough ... This must stop. Liberty is in the balance."

James Madison sums up the dilemma in Federalist Paper #51:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

President Andrew Jackson stated in his Seventh Annual Message, Dec. 7, 1835:
"All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power, and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish their control over it."

CONFUSION
November 18, 2003, even as Massachusetts Legislators were working to define marriage as between a man and a woman, four State Supreme Court Judges "ordered" the State Legislature to pass a law within 180 days recognizing homosexual marriage.

Deciding what laws are needed is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is simply to administer the laws according to the meaning the legislators had when passing the laws.

Thomas Jefferson explained to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823:
"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Baron Montesquieu , the most quoted writer by the Framers of the Constitution, warned of the dangers of uncontrolled judicial power in his Spirit of the Laws, 1748:
"Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same ... body of principal men ... exercised these three powers."

States must be vigilant or they will become irrelevant. The nation's F**g may soon be 13 stripes and instead of 50 stars, one big star, as America's constitutional republic is t***sformed into the United STATE.

PeterS

Good, I'll take Supreme Court Despots over the Despot we have in the Whitehouse now...

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

The Supreme Court today is not doing the job it was created for.
It was created so the common man could still get a fair shake if larger interests were bullying him. So he could gave his voice heard.
This is gone.bush 43 changed the application of courts remanding any cases involving corporations to the lower courts and then closed 1/2 of the lower courts.
So if you have a case against the corporation it goes to die in the lower courts because they are suddenly overloaded.
No time for you.
You should bought your own justice while you had the chance.
Citizens United made it all clear
Corporations are people
And Money is Speech!
No room there for you to get a fair shake!
But go ahead keep defending your RepubliPIGs I’m sure you still matter to them until November.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Why don't you slither back under the rock you came from.

factnotfiction

Conservative lies and major BS

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Then why can't you refute it intelligently? I forgot...you're a l*****t.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Yeah you would love one branch of government instead of three...and you call Trump a dictator.

ImLogicallyRight

***I'll take Supreme Court Despots over the Despot we have in the Whitehouse now..


>>>As usual, you have no idea what this is all about in your haste to express your hatred of President Trump.
Really stupid.

No where in this post was there any mention of the President as the issue, but the Supreme Court making judgments and thus making law in direct assault on Congress or state legislatures rights and obligation to write the nations laws. Their job is to interpret legality and constitutionality of laws and not rewrite legislation. And, though not always, it is usually the liberal and l*****t judges, occasionally joined by one or two conservative judges that cause such mayhem to law and our Republic. They just might find themselves without life time appointments as a cure for this irresponsibility.

And I'm afraid there is no cure for your irresponsible messages to OPP.

ImLogicallyRight

Another person with no idea what this is all about, an assault on our liberty by 9 judges taking the writing of our nations laws onto themselves.