He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear (Matthew 11:15-30)
Challenging both secular wisdom and religious doctrines. - Will our descendants know moral virtue?
Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats
Back to Wall of Separation? Index
Supreme Court "Judicial Decisions!"
On becoming a despotic branch (See Despotic Branch also.)
"How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism." --James Monroe, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
“My confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.” Thomas Jefferson
1947 ended Thomas Jefferson's "long time,"
and secular liberalism replaced "virtue and good sense" and "abuses"
began to abound because the original intent of the Declaration of Independence
and U. S. Constitution, founded upon a Biblical worldview, has been abandoned in
lieu of a progressive worldview.
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to
discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the
Study of Law in the United States, 1790 The Supreme
Court is not our benevolent dictator ROB SCHWARZWALDER — The clear
and inherent constraints of the Constitution would, if applied with
intellectual honesty, put an end to the expansionist vision of the
federal government that is essential to the Left's program of statism.
The Left cannot abide applying the Constitution as it is written because
this would upend its multipronged efforts to reshape American government
and society at large...
The Heritage Foundation has
a website to highlight how judges have served as policymakers instead of
faithful interpreters of the law. This helpful new resource profiles
federal judges and judicial nominees, and provides analysis of current and
historical activist court rulings. This archive of activist decisions is
searchable by case, court, judge or topic.
OrderInTheCourt.org is part of
our comprehensive effort under our 10-year
Leadership for America campaign to preserve the rule of law.
Christians want court to follow Constitution 'Religion' of Obama's choice
for Supreme Court not as important By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily -
Asked what they would like to see in a Supreme Court nominee, Christian
leaders from a wide range of backgrounds say adherence to the U.S.
Constitution is more important than personal religion. President Obama
will make his second nomination to the high court following the announced
retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the only Protestant on the
bench. Six other justices belong to the Catholic Church, and two are
Jewish. And while President Obama's stated dedication to "diversity" might
suggest the need for someone of another religion, several Christian
leaders say the Constitution is the priority. "I don't think a person's
religious affiliation matters as much as their judicial philosophy,"
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel
and the dean of Liberty University school of law, told Christianity Today.
"The rule of law is not to push an agenda. "It's nice to have diversity,
but the law is color blind, and your skin color or religious affiliation
shouldn't be reflective of your decisions," he said. Speculation has been
rampant about Obama's next nomination, because of the likelihood of a
serious fight in the Senate if the president picks a true radical, as he
has for many of his political appointees.
SCOTUS Obamacare Vote
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790
The Supreme Court is not our benevolent dictator ROB SCHWARZWALDER — The clear and inherent constraints of the Constitution would, if applied with intellectual honesty, put an end to the expansionist vision of the federal government that is essential to the Left's program of statism. The Left cannot abide applying the Constitution as it is written because this would upend its multipronged efforts to reshape American government and society at large...
The Heritage Foundation has a website to highlight how judges have served as policymakers instead of faithful interpreters of the law. This helpful new resource profiles federal judges and judicial nominees, and provides analysis of current and historical activist court rulings. This archive of activist decisions is searchable by case, court, judge or topic. OrderInTheCourt.org is part of our comprehensive effort under our 10-year Leadership for America campaign to preserve the rule of law.
Christians want court to follow Constitution 'Religion' of Obama's choice for Supreme Court not as important By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily - Asked what they would like to see in a Supreme Court nominee, Christian leaders from a wide range of backgrounds say adherence to the U.S. Constitution is more important than personal religion. President Obama will make his second nomination to the high court following the announced retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the only Protestant on the bench. Six other justices belong to the Catholic Church, and two are Jewish. And while President Obama's stated dedication to "diversity" might suggest the need for someone of another religion, several Christian leaders say the Constitution is the priority. "I don't think a person's religious affiliation matters as much as their judicial philosophy," Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and the dean of Liberty University school of law, told Christianity Today. "The rule of law is not to push an agenda. "It's nice to have diversity, but the law is color blind, and your skin color or religious affiliation shouldn't be reflective of your decisions," he said. Speculation has been rampant about Obama's next nomination, because of the likelihood of a serious fight in the Senate if the president picks a true radical, as he has for many of his political appointees.
SCOTUS Obamacare Vote
From the Supreme Court Justice oath: "...faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me ... according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."
In Federalist No. 32, Alexander Hamilton writes on the subject of constitutional interpretation, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution."
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 78, 1788) "... [The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Let a general reformation of manners take place--let universal charity, public spirit, and private virtue be inculcated, encouraged, and practiced. Unite in preparing for a vigorous defense of your country, as if all depended on your own exertions. And when you have done all things, then rely upon the good Providence of Almighty God for success, in full confidence that without his blessings, all our efforts will inevitably fail."
David Brewer, Supreme Court Justice, 1901: In no other way can this republic become a world power in the noblest sense of the word than by putting into her life and the lives of her citizens the spirit and principles of the Great Founder of Christianity.
"The political Left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove." Ron Paul
"Republics...fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." Joseph Story
“Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control... The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will... It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation... 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.” Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson also voiced his condemnation of the judiciary in a letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823: "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
before his death in 1826, Jefferson warned:
"One single object ...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." James Madison (Federalist No. 58, 1788) Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 48
"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 people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Abraham Lincoln
It is not the Supreme Court's place to make or impose new laws or change laws. New laws, or amendments to the Constitution belong to the Congress. If Congress DEBATES, consider constituent concerns and views, VOTES, and amends the Constitution, then the Founders intent would be fulfilled, whether or not you or I may agree with that decision, for then, and ONLY then, will "government by people" be realized - NOT "government by activist judges." The court decisions below, as well as the MA-SJC on same-sex marriage, without debates and without vote, go beyond the scope of judges, which the Founders purposely put in place as a check and balance of the three branches. What these judges are now doing is exactly what Jefferson and others warned about - the "despotic branch" or selective compliance by judges.
"Let the pulpit resound with the doctrine and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear of the dignity of man's nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God... Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments." - John Adams Author of Massachusetts Constitution (Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765) Reference: The Most Nearly Perfect Solution, Guinness, 3-26; and John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, Thompson, 54.
Read TVC's report on judicial tyranny and how legislators can deal with renegade judges who issue illegal rulings.
Violations of the Constitution by the courts
1947: Violated the Constitution by banning freedom of expression. Enacting "a wall of separation between church and state." (Everson v. Board of Education) This decision, instead of protecting religion from government interference, violated the Constitution by banning freedom of expression.
1962: Prohibited non-denominational prayer from public schools. (Engle v. Vitale)
1963: Banned Bible teaching in public schools. (Abington Township v. Schempp)
1968: Allow teaching the theory of evolution. (Epperson v. Arkansas)
1973: Abortion: The right to kill the unborn.
1980: Ordered public schools to remove the Ten Commandments from student view. (Stove v. Graham)
1981: Freedom of press and speech is guaranteed to students unless the topic is religious.
1985: Disallowed religious benedictions and invocations from school activities. (Wallace v. Aguillard)
1992: Banning prayer at public school graduations. (Lee v. Weisman)
1992: Accused Colorado voters, of animosity towards homosexuals.
2000: Prohibited pre-game student-led prayers.
2000: Overturned the laws of 27 states banning partial-birth abortions.
2002: The Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the words "under God." Feedback and response from a reader of the Federalist No. 03-10 Digest notes: 'If reciting the pledge is truly a 'religious act' in violation of the establishment clause, then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the national motto or the singing of the national anthem.'
2003: Rejected the 1986 state of Texas's ban on same-sex sodomy. Thomas Jefferson warned, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." "[T]he 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." " - "It is not honorable to take mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice." But what to do when judges refuse to be bound by constitutions? "Impeach the Sodomy 6" - Joseph Farah - WorlNetDaily.com
2003: Violated the First Amendment by ruling against Chief Justice Moore of Alabama in displaying a Ten Commandments monument in the state's judicial building. "One federal judge has placed the Ten Commandments in a closet. That came after the United States Supreme Court recently welcomed everything else out of the closet." -- Tony Perkins, new president of the Family Research Council
2003: Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Reform Laws - The Supremes on Monday (9/8/03) heard expedited arguments over the so-called "campaign-finance reform" -- the McCain-Feingold bill re-tooled as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Remarks and queries from the high-court members suggested that the decision may be yet another 5-4 split, with Sandra Day O'Connor again determining the outcome. The real issue, of course, is the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of political free speech -- most notably, whether we take seriously the Constitution's bar that "Congress shall make no [such] law." Of course, we already know how the federal bench regards the construction of our Constitution. The Federalist Brief 03-37
2004: Clinton appointed Judge Phyllis Hamilton, overruling partial-birth abortion law Washington D.C. ruling that Planned Parenthood's 900 or so facilities and abortionists -- which kill over 600,000 unborn children every year, half of all abortions in America -- can resume partial-birth abortions. Judge Phyllis Hamilton is the same judge who allowed a San Francisco-area school district to force school children into "becoming Muslims" for two weeks as part of their world history unit on Islam.
2004: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Strikes Down Idaho's Parental Consent Law. The court that struck "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance has now decided that Idaho's law requiring parental consent before a minor obtains an abortion is unconstitutional. The court said that the law did not have an adequate exception, which would allow some minor girls to bypass the consent requirement. What that really means is that the court wants the law to have a gaping loophole that would devoid it of its intent - to prevent young teenage girls from having abortions without their parent's knowledge. Forty-four states have passed parental consent laws (though only 24 are in effect, thanks to various legal challenges), and recent polls have found that more than 70 percent of Americans support such measures. It is common sense that teen girls shouldn't be pressured into having an abortion by Planned Parenthood saleswomen, leaving their parents to find out only after the fact, if at all.
2004: Jan LaRue, gives us just a little taste of the Supreme Court review that pulls no punches! The opinions included in this Review involve a broad range of issues that should include something for everyone: Click here to listen. Click here to read the entire Supreme Court review in pdf format.CWA’s Chief Counsel,
national security and the war against terrorism-the Commander-in-Chief v. the courts;
the Pledge of Allegiance-prayer or patriotism;
Internet pornography-who bears the burden to protect children;
religious liberty-or religious discrimination;
sexual harassment in the workplace;
when there's a right to remain silent and when there isn't;
cities v. sex businesses; and
the increasing reliance on "international law" by federal courts. .....MORE
Judge: Texas Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional - Ruling clears way for two gay Dallas men to divorce -
A Dallas judge ruled Thursday that Texas' ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional as she cleared the way for two gay men to divorce, the Dallas Morning News reported.
State District Judge Tena Callahan said the state’s bans on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee to equal protection under the law.
While the Texas attorney general had stepped into the case to say that because a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce, Tena denied the intervention.
Since Christian principles were removed from American public life starting in 1962 (See above):
SAT scores are down 10%
Teen suicide up 450%
Child abuse up 2300%
Illegal drugs up 6000%
Criminal arrests of teens 14-17 up 150%
Divorce up 350%
Birth to unmarried girls under 20 up 150%.
Sources: College entrance board exams, National Center for Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Child Maltreatment: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, National Institute on Drug Abuse, U.S. Department Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the U. S., U. S. Department of Commerce, and Statistical Abstract of the U.S.
Center For Individual Freedom: Group Analyzes 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Record
July 30, 2004 –
The Center for Individual Freedom Foundation has
published a detailed
report on the high number of case reversals from the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The 9th is the most liberal court in the U.S. It also has the highest case load and oversees lawsuits covering an estimated 56 million Americans in the western states.
The 9th has the highest number of reversals of any federal court in the U.S. The 9th Court’s opinions accounted for 43% of the Supreme Court’s unanimous reversals (10 out of 23). Its cases are reversed three times as frequently as other court systems in the U.S.
The Center’s report is available for downloading and distribution. Read TVC’s report on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and urge your legislators to support legislation that will split up the 9th and add one additional federal court system to an overburdened federal judiciary.
Decisions Based on International - NOT Constitutional - Rulings
Since 1977 and more so in recent years, Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy especially have cited foreign decisions to buttress their views. In a 1999 death penalty case, Breyer cited judicial decisions from Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Court of Human Rights to support his decision. Even in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state's sodomy statute, Kennedy referred to EUROPEAN court cases, instead of sticking to OUR Constitution for his decision. http://www.ConservativeAlerts.com/
In recent decisions, a number of high court justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony M. Kennedy have quoted laws from other countries as having been influential in their rulings. Critics claim that is a violation of their oath, in which the judges pledge to look only to the Constitution of the United States as the law of the land. Nevertheless, these Supreme Court justices have referenced laws in Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Canada, and the European Union in making recent decisions. http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/162004h.asp
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning a state statute banning sodomy, based on the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” clause: Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority five with O’Connor concurring in a separate opinion, affirming the ''rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct,'' as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights and others. Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Thomas and Rehnquist, dissented, saying, ''The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.'' Adding that ''the court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is...meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.''
Justice O’Connor, speaking on October 27, 2004 at a dedication ceremony for an international law center at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.: “International law has emerged in ways that affect all courts, here and abroad.” And: “The reason is globalization. Its importance should not be underestimated.” And: “International law, which is the expression of agreement on some basic principles of relations between nations, will be a factor or a force in gaining a greater consensus among all nations. ... It can be and it is a help in our search for a more peaceful world.” And: “Acting in accord with international norms may increase the chances for development of broader alliances or at least silent support from other nations.” And: “Because of the scope of the problems we face, understanding international law is no longer just a legal specialty; it is becoming a duty.”
Expect the U.S. Supreme Court to increasingly impose detrimental foreign law on the American people. That's the ominous warning from Justice Antonin Scalia, who says his colleagues on the nation's highest court are rejecting our founding fathers' values to take their cues from foreigners. Your help is needed! Please (1) thank Justice Scalia for his courageous stand and (2) challenge the Supreme Court's liberal majority to use the original intent of the U.S. Constitution as the basis for rulings, not what foreigners think. "We have no authority to look around and say, 'Wow, things have changed,'" Scalia said in sounding the alarm. "It is my view that modern foreign legal material can never be relevant to any interpretation of, that is to say, to the meaning of the U.S. Constitution." Scalia is right! This contrived tactic of looking outside our borders instead of to our Constitution is a clear and present danger to America. Whenever the court's liberal justices want to foist their immoral beliefs on us, they need only look to a misguided nation that allows whatever they desire. We, the people, must demand they act like Americans! The only correct and consistent way to interpret U.S. law is to stick to the original meaning of the Constitution. You can play a key role in this battle by helping to keep our U.S. Supreme Court justices from inflicting what other nations think and do on the American people. Don't let foreign law continue to influence Supreme Court rulings! Thank Scalia for sounding the alarm and challenge liberal justices not to be influenced by foreign law or use it as an excuse to back their misguided contentions! Here is where to act: http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=272
The Prime example of Deception + Coercion: Supreme Court Injustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - "Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change. ...While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world. We are the losers if we do not both share our experiences with and learn from others." -- The Federalist Brief 03-32 In other words, America's sovereignty matters no longer to liberals. Their goal, a Global Village ruled by UNELECTED U.N. Officials. Phyllis Schlafly writes that "Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently joined Hillary Clinton, Janet Reno, anti-Pledge-of-Allegiance Judge Stephen Reinhardt, and other like-mined liberals and feminists to launch a new organization called the American Constitution Society. Its mission is to challenge the Federalist Society, which promotes the nomination of judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution and in America's unique system of federalism.
The 9th Circuit, the appeals court that purged God from the Pledge of Allegiance.
--9th Circuit decisions reviewed by the Supreme
Court have been reversed about 80 to 90 percent of the time over the past seven
terms; during the same period, its rulings have received an average of between
1.5 and 2.5 votes from Supreme Court Justices.
--In 1996-97, the 9th Circuit was reversed in 27 of 28 cases, 16 of which were unanimous. In 1999-2000, the 9th Circuit was reversed in 9 of 10 cases. And in 2000-2001, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit in 14 of 18 cases, 7 of which were unanimous.
--Between 1985 and 1997, the 9th Circuit was reversed in a total of 157 cases while the other 11 regional courts of appeals were reversed an average of 46 times each.
--Between 1985 and 1997, the 9th Circuit was reversed unanimously (in non-summary dispositions) a total of 38 times while the other 11 regional appellate courts averaged fewer than 10 unanimous reversals each. (Human Events Online)
--September 2003 the 9th Circuit ruled the same voting ballot system that elected Gray Davis can not be used to recall him.
New Poll: Americans Support Christian Monuments Family Research Council Washington Update - September 30, 2003
Americans are overwhelmingly thumbing their noses at liberal judicial activists who seek to strip the public square of all references to God.
The USA Today poll shows that Americans - by a majority of 70 percent! - are supportive of public monuments to the Ten Commandments. The poll also found that nearly 80 percent of Americans support prayer in public schools, and 90 percent support the "In God We Trust" inscription on U.S. coins.
These numbers are interesting not only because they show the nation supports generic religious expression, but also because Americans clearly prefer Christian references to those of other religions. While nearly two-thirds of Americans support federal funding for Christian organizations, far less want similar Islamic organizations to receive government money. Additionally, the number of Americans supporting public monuments to the Koran amount to less than half of those who support Ten Commandments monuments.
Since our federal courts no longer feel bound by the Constitution, perhaps we can hope they at least subscribe to USA Today. Then they would see that the anti-religion ideology they are increasingly bowing to is not only the antithesis of our nation's founding, but also runs counter to public opinion more than 200 years later.
A Way You Can Help: There was a great turnout in Arizona last week, as 1,000 people rallied at the Center for Arizona Policy event to show their support for public monuments of the Ten Commandments. If you're interested in showing your support for the Ten Commandments, be sure to periodically check out our website, www.frc.org, for the latest information on rallies throughout the country.
In no other way can this republic become a world power in the noblest sense of the word than by putting into her life and the lives of her citizens the spirit and principles of the Great Founder of Christianity. --David Brewer, Supreme Court Justice, 1901
Back to Wall of Separation? Index
Home | About | Search | Newsletter | Contact | Store | Donate | Advertise | Sponsor | Webstats