The battle for the future of the U.S. Supreme Court, and any remaining semblance of One Nation Under God began the day Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.
While this war had been simmering for at least a decade, a vacancy on the High Court ensured a full-fledged war for the power and control it has given the socialists/communists who now dominate the Democrat Party. They use the courts to force their radical ideas upon us with the bang of a gavel.
Unfortunately, over the past century, the SC selection process has become increasingly politicized by presidents seeking to nominate those who would do their political bidding from the bench. Remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt who threatened to “pack the Court” to achieve his political goals? Today, the same threat is being made by the socialists/communists. Again, if our representatives cannot get constituents to agree with their progressive plans, they use the courts to do the dirty work. And voila, unconstitutional ideas become the “law of the land!”
Media talking heads are always harping that Supreme Court judges serve for life, but never explain that this tenure is during “good behavior.” (Constitution: Article III, section1) These judges are not supposed to conduct their work in a political fashion, as do politically elected congressmen. They are supposed to be neutral in their opinions, favoring only the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. This constitution is a written contract made with the American people, and therefore is the main instrument with which to determine if laws made by the congress are constitutional or unconstitutional. But is this the case?
Perhaps we should consider the oaths judges take before assuming their offices. There are two required for judges, or one that combines the two. They are:
Despite these oaths, judges increasingly rely on foreign law to aid in their decisions. While I have only researched activity for the highest court, it is possibly happening in the lower courts as well. RBG, the main person we have been discussing, was a major proponent of looking to foreign constitutions for guidance in her decisions, and even spoke internationally about the importance of doing so.
“In a speech in South Africa, RBG argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., ‘why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?’” (patriotortraitor.com)
The answer to her why not all the extra-constitutional references is in the two oaths she took upon becoming a judge. She is supposed to support the U.S. Constitution, and faithfully discharge her duties to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. (So much for “good behavior.”)
Additionally, the first woman on the court, Sandra Day O’Connor, believed “the U.S. judiciary should pay even more attention to international court decisions than it already does.” O'Connor continued, that doing so, "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it will create that all important good impression." (http://www.rfcnet.org/pdfs/SupremeInternLaw.pdf)
No offense, but do we seat our judges to ensure that our laws are being properly executed, or to impress other nations? Perhaps our judges should be more concerned that American citizens are being allowed to pursue their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution is the Law that is supposed to ensure these rights, is it not?
O’Connor and RBG were not the only ones desiring to use international laws in decision-making. Others I discovered so far include Justices Blackmun, Marshall, Brennan, Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer, and Kagan.
During his confirmation hearings, John Roberts commented, “If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge…and yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.” Exactly. Does he still believe this though?
So, the battle for the bench rages. Knowing the importance of reversing the anti-constitutional course courts have taken, President Donald Trump has nominated yet another strict constructionist, Amy Coney Barrett. While Barret is considered highly qualified for this position, she is a Catholic who is being disparaged because she actively lives out her faith. During her confirmation hearing for the federal Court of Appeals, Senator Diane Feinstein commented to Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Remember, all elected officials take the Constitutional Oath stating no religious test shall be required for any office or public trust under the United States.
In America, one can practice their individual religious beliefs, or have no religious beliefs at all. So accordingly, questioning Barrett’s beliefs should be out of bounds. Consider that the late RBG was actively involved with the ACLU and radical feminism before her SC nomination. Since today, radical ideology is tantamount to religion, could it not be said that the “dogma” of her pet causes “lived loudly” in RBG? And yet, she was nonetheless deemed qualified to serve, and confirmed 96-3.
It is important to remember that the role of the U.S. Senate is that of “advice and consent.” (Article II, Section 2.)
When Democrat presidents have nominated more liberal-leaning judges to the Court, Republicans have generally given a thumbs up to any nominee if judicially qualified. Not so with Republican presidential nominees. Again, what matters is that the person is judicially qualified because the President has the right to nominate whomever he wants. (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)
Why is all this so important to discuss? Consider the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says:
As we previously discussed, increasingly, the courts overthrow the laws of the individual states, declaring them unconstitutional, thus basically writing new laws, and the will of the people is thwarted.
In his book, The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, author Michael Anton calls the courts a “Kritarchy,” meaning a “rule of judges.” This is not a regime “where judges rule alone,” but where they are a “vital node of the neoliberal oligarchy.” He says that while these judges claim to be loyal to the Constitution, it is to a “rival constitution of the left’s own devising…its tenets are explained in various books and journal articles, in certain laws, and in administrative rules.” Continuing, he says, “But mostly they are memorialized in judicial rulings that purport to interpret the de jure Constitution, but which really outline the parameters of today’s true, de facto constitution.”
In essence, under the guise of “interpreting” the law, judges very often “make the law” while inventing new “rights” as they go.
Article VI of the Constitution clearly provides:
America the Free is in jeopardy. Our rights are under attack by the very institution that is supposed to protect them! Our Constitution is being shredded. Christianity is under attack, despite First Amendment rights. Government is gaining more control over us. What can we do?
The Bible says judges are to judge with righteous judgment. (Deut. 16:18) Either we repent and return to honoring God and our constitution, or our foundations will be destroyed completely. This includes selecting God-fearing, constitution-honoring judges of integrity, which President Trump has been doing. Let us pray he succeeds yet again. To anyone willing to hear….© Madeline Crabb
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.