Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Doug Smith: Liberal “settled law” about to be shaken by a new era of SCOTUS.

2 Jul

supreme court

Current 2018 U.S. Supreme Court

 

doug 2

Doug Smith is a historian and social editor for Free State Patriot

July 2, 2018

 

The left is facing the possibility, after generations of relying on SCOTUS as a sort of rump Congress, of a court which will follow the very (for them) inconvenient Constitution.

Their reactions are nothing, if not predictable.

Like the toddler who thoughtfully redecorates your wall with shoe polish, the Left, mostly the Dems, (but we must include Susan Collins and the other Rinos in this category), they have no idea of the intended purpose of the Court and are destructive in their creative misapplications.

Because so many of them failed Civics, failed to take it, or took over the education system and replaced with social studies to create generations of Americans who had no earthly idea how their government functions, a brief recap.

We have 3 branches of government in our representative republic. Within the framework established by the Constitution, the covenant under which the citizens agreed to live, power is loaned, by the consent of the people, to these 3 branches. None of them holds all power, and that is for the safety of the citizens and the republic.

The President, and those Secretaries he appoints, are charged with executing the laws of the United States and keeping it safe through the judicious use of military might.

The Congress is charged with enacting laws, within the framework of the Constitution, for the functioning of the country, and has the sole power to raise, and spend money.

The Supreme Court is charged with ruling on lower court decisions as to the application of laws solely to determine if they are enacted within the boundaries of the Constitution.

The 3 branches are prohibited by the Constitution from usurping each other’s’ functions.  Thus, the President may not allocate money or raise taxes, Congress cannot wage war or enforce the laws they pass, and SCOTUS may not make laws or order the spending or allocation of moneys.

That is how things are done in the representative republic known as the United States of America. Not so in the Province of “Lefterville”.

The Left cannot honestly work within the system, run for election on what they truly believe and desire, get members of Congress elected, and enact their agenda as law. We want tax rates at 70%, 50 million abortions a year, lower wages, and everybody who is not one of us, and thus in charge, dependent on the government so they don’t dare oppose us is not a winning ticket.

So, they lie. But that is a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy is to ignore the Constitution, and the law, and instead rule from the bench as if the judges and justices were reigning over a ducal fief.

And this brings us to a favorite phrase of the Left: Settled Law. (Settled science or consensus is a similar favorite, with the same nefarious aim: to stifle dissent. When a Lefty says, “It is Settled Law, of course, what they mean is “It’s a law we like, some court has ruled our way, so precedent forbids you from EVER changing it.” Of course, they don’t really believe in settled law, because every one of them would overturn the 2nd Amendment tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

So “Settled Law” means, for them, (reminiscent of the Russians, who never give back land taken in conquest when the war is over), that anything they have won, they get to keep forever. If you try to take it back, they will respond with hysteria, shrieks, obscenities, death threats, and of course, always, and forever, some way to make it about (everyone stand and salute now) THE CHILDREN.

If any ruling by SCOTUS were Settled Law, and inviolable, then the Dred Scot decision of 1857 would be the precedent for keeping slavery alive to this day. Instead, the 13thAmendment, ratified in December 1865, forbade slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States.

Did you catch it? I just whizzed by you, plain as day. The Left misses it. How about you?

Ah, yes, there IS a settled law. It was settled because 13 colonies of the British Empire declared their independence, fought for it, and 6 years later, established and ordained the Constitution of the United States of America. Each subsequent territory, to become a state, agreed to adhere to those laws, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. If the people choose to change their laws, as with their experiment with prohibition of alcohol, they have a mechanism to amend the Constitution. And we have done so many times. But you see, to do so, you must persuade most of the folks that it is a good idea.

That is a hard proposition, especially if your ideas and goofy, or have been repeatedly tried and failed. Much easier to get people used to bowing to judges, issuing rulings that force people to DO something, or Congress or States to spend money, (see mini lesson above: Who gets to make laws and distribute money?) Then you merely must pack the courts with judges who will ignore the law and rule according to their politics. FDR applied that principle in trying to pack SCOTUS with 2 extra Leftist Justices in 1937. Thus, the Left does not worry about persuading people of their ideas, but in forcing them on people. Hence their hysterical panic at this nexus in history which offers an opportunity for a generation of a court which will rule according the Constitution, and not popular sentiment, or political correctness.

justice

Note their arguments: Roe v Wade, Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Immigration Reform, or pick your issue, will be tossed out, overturned, destroyed. Note, as well, what they do, NOT say: if the people want abortion, or gay marriage, or Obamacare, then let them petition their representatives to pass laws to enact it.

In short, they must do what Obama, the quintessential Lefty would not or could not do, persuade. Must easier to step on their necks with judges. And using this principle they have forced the will of a minority elite on most of the folks time and again.

The arrogance that has instilled in them is why Leftists will not debate issues and insist that Global Climate Change Warming Cooling Ice Age Armageddon is Settled Science. That way we don’t have to do research, cost/benefits analysis, or factual reporting. We just must insist that you do it our way, believe our way, or we will throw bad Karma your way.

In short, they don’t want to govern, they want to rule. The Knights of the Black Robe, and their Knight Commander Kennedy have ruled far too much and far too long. But a new day may be at hand. King John is riding toward Runnymede and is about to meet the barons. The Magna Carta is about to be signed. And for a season, or a generation, we may see a move back to the proper roles of government and a court which refuses to make new law. It is the form of government under which we live.

But those who prosper by usurping it will not cheer. Nor will they accept it quietly. We ought to win the fight but be ready for Lefties marching in the streets (since they have no jobs and exist on welfare or have government jobs and thus can get off to go protest the government for whom they work, which, by the way, may also change shortly), Lefties wearing hats resembling genitalia, pitiful, even if faked, pictures of crying children, and Borkian tales of Dystopia if the Left stops getting its way.

Buckle up.  But it is worth the E ride. A true 5-4 constructionist court will begin to force us to live under our Constitution again, and become a nation of laws, and not of lawyers.

And keep your heads up. SCOTUS has been a flail for a long time. But 2 of the Lefty justices left after Kennedy are 79 and 85 years old. Conservatives will look at some of the wacky positions of the Left, balance that against Trump s Twitter finger, and decide that a 7-2 SCOTUS for a generation sound pretty good and is worth dealing with Trumps eccentricity for another 6 years.

 

 

 

TRUMP VICTORY! Supreme Court upholds travel ban!!

26 Jun

This is why the Supreme Court is so important…

scourt

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is a big victory for Trump on an issue that is central to his presidency, and the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. The president quickly tweeted his reaction: “Wow!”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.

But he was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general or Muslims in particular, including Trump’s campaign pledge to keep Muslims from entering the country.

“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote.

The travel ban has been fully in place since December, when the justices put the brakes on lower court rulings that had ruled the policy out of bounds and blocked part of it from being enforced.

In a dissent she summarized in court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision today, nor should it.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented.

Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She said her colleagues in the majority arrived at the opposite result by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.”

She likened the case to the discredited Korematsu V. U.S. decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts responded in his opinion that “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case” and “was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”

The travel ban was among the court’s biggest cases this term and the latest in a string of 5-4 decisions in which the conservative side of the court, bolstered by the addition of Gorsuch last year, prevailed. Gorsuch was nominated by Trump after Republicans in the Senate refused to grant a hearing to federal appeals Judge Merrick Garland, who was appointed by Barack Obama with more than 10 months remaining in Obama’s term.

The Trump policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries, blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump said in a proclamation.

The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns.

The challengers, though, argued that the court could not just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump’s campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States.

The travel ban has long been central to Trump’s presidency.

He proposed a broad, all-encompassing Muslim ban during the presidential campaign in 2015, drawing swift rebukes from Republicans as well as Democrats. And within a week of taking office, the first travel ban was announced with little notice, sparking chaos at airports and protests across the nation.

While the ban has changed shape since then, it has remained a key part of Trump’s “America First” vision, with the president believing that the restriction, taken in tandem with his promised wall at the southern border, would make the Unites States safer from potentially hostile foreigners.

In a statement he released Tuesday morning, Trump hailed the decision as “a moment of profound vindication” following “months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

Strongly disagreeing, Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota said, “This decision will someday serve as a marker of shame.” Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who was born in Japan, both compared the ban and the ruling to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Critics of Trump’s ban had urged the justices to affirm the decisions in lower courts that generally concluded that the changes made to the travel policy did not erase the ban’s legal problems.

The current version dates from last September and it followed what the administration has called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although no such review has been shared with courts or the public.

Federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland had blocked the travel ban from taking effect, finding that the new version looked too much like its predecessors. Those rulings that were largely upheld by federal appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco.

But the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion Tuesday. The policy has “a legitimate grounding in national security concerns,” and it has several moderating features, including a waiver program that would allow some people from the affected countries to enter the U.S., Roberts said. The administration has said that 809 people have received waivers since the ban took full effect in December.

Roberts wrote that presidents have frequently used their power to talk to the nation “to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded.” But he added that presidents and the country have not always lived up “to those inspiring words.”

The challengers to the ban asserted that Trump’s statements crossed a constitutional line, Roberts said.

“But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility,” he said

___

Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

 

%d bloggers like this: