Liberty hangs in balance with Supreme Court appointments
By Sparta Live | October 31, 2016 6:37 am
Last Updated: October 31, 2016 at 9:16 am
Language of Liberty, 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 where 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: 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”, White, who did not stray from progressive ideology when his was 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 of the two allowed their fellow conservative justice 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, very abbreviated list of decrees rendered by the High Court, some with the crucial assistance of these pseudo-conservatives. In each case, the Constitutional basis was contrived and the tortured legal reasoning defied common sense:
Roe v. Wade, creating a so-called “right” to abort babies, 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; Banning of public school prayer and Bible reading; Various decisions removing restrictions on pornography, making it “free speech”; So-called campaign finance “reform”; 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; 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” . These cases are barely the tip of the iceberg.
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 to 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 reign 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 presidential candidates of the major parties 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 book.
However, the opposing Republican nominee did not appear to be the first choice of the so-called “conservative” party, evidently frustrating the establishment. In a wide margin, the people selected a non-political outsider in the primaries – a major departure from the counterfeit-conservative politicians to which Americans had become accustomed. The nonconformist candidate later announced a slate of potential High Court nominees, which he selected specifically to break the mold of the stealth progressives typically appointed by Republican presidents. He vowed that his list of Supreme Court candidates, 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 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.
We must be reminded that 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 which 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 decision 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 firstname.lastname@example.org To learn more, go to CenterForSelfGovernance.com.