Why Supreme Court Selections are a False Choice
The commotion over the nominations
of John Roberts and Harriet Miers avoid the central problem with the Supreme Court.
Judicial review in its pure raw form is a guaranteed formula for state sponsored terrorism. Under the fig leaf of law, the court manufactures excuses for the state to use force and intimidation to
compel, coerce and control society for the benefit of the central government. Is
there any question that Supreme Court jurists are government employees? Of course
not, so why is it automatically assumed that black robed magistrates serve the cause of justice when their rulings practice
the art of the magician. Perfecting tricks of deception and canonizing their
illusion as settled law is like announcing to the public that your life and liberty are arbitrary and contingent upon the
“good will” of the sacred master of power.
The reason for the American
Revolution was founded upon the deep and profound principle that government cannot be trusted to protect natural rights of
individual citizens. Today’s world is entirely ignorant of the apprehension
towards deliberate state designed despotism that is embedded in the origin of the country.
Not only were the Founding Fathers aware of the evils of a strong central government, they went to elaborate lengths
to codify and restrict the legitimate and legal powers of that government. Re-read
the constitution and ask the simple question: Is the United States a realm that operates under the intent and limitations
that are placed upon the federal government? There can be only one honest answer,
the promise and procedure for narrow centralized authority has long ago been abandoned from a “federalism’
model of checks and balances.
|I'm a Government Corporation Man and Here to Help!
The arrogance of Chief Justice John Marshall set the stage for the dominance of society by an arbitrator who would
be king. Interpretation of the constitution is achieved by a straightforward
comprehension of its meaning. The reliance upon previous artificial precedent
as the basis for ruling is a guarantee for abandonment of the original document. John
Roberts made a consistent point of acknowledging settled law. Yet the only legitimate
paradigm for “stare decisis”, a Latin term meaning "let the decision stand," is the actual constitution
itself. The ratification, often questionable when examined, of the U.S. Constitution
by the individual original states created the condition whereby the judicial branch would appropriate far greater power than
ever intended. The exclusion of the tenth amendment has been the objective from
the inception. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The following documents that the Supreme Court immediately undertook
the task of codifying the opinion that the central government would not recognize restraints upon its ability to run rough
shot over individual states:
“Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the
cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word ''expressly'' as a qualification of granted
powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest
has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.''
Since we are burdened under a contrived and supercilious hoax that puts the federal regime in total and complete command
of our government, we are told that it is lawful, because the Supreme Court has ruled it to be so. As long as we must endure this fraud, the proper criteria for selecting a nominee for the court should
be based upon their commitment to view the central government as the greatest threat to the life, liberty and property of
the people. The Kelso vs. New London decision is ample proof that the Supreme
Court is hardly the defender of constitutional rights like the Fifth Amendment. “Nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” has morphed into any approved private
use that passes the crony test for local municipalities. To whatever degree that
a supreme law has relevance over states’ rights, surely the protection of individual private property from seizure for
use by a privileged party should ring loud and clear.
Published in the High Springs Herald:
“Republican Justice John Paul Stevens says that a strict constitutional interpretation requires
that the States and local government be responsible for deciding what constitutes a legal "taking" of a private citizen's
land, and the Supreme Court has no place in telling them differently.
States Rights and Local Authority over National Authority? Sounds conservative to me. And it is - the
Kelo Vs. New London ruling is a result of conservative viewpoint and a strict interpretation of the constitution's limits
of power. In this case, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor took the liberal position - that the constitution is not the final say,
and that you can't look at the law in a vacuum.”
The deduction that the dissenting opinion is liberal is erroneous. It is original and correct. The question
for the state of Connecticut, can’t your justices read your own constitution?
|Where you go I will follow
|I'll carry your water and pull your bags
Genuine conservatives’ fear that Harriet Miers will be not be a Antonin Scalia originalist is certainly
well founded. Like Judge Roberts, she is a commercial lawyer fully comfortable
with shaping the law to fit the needs of the corporate/state partnership. President
Bush nominated Roberts for the same reason. The Miers’ selection is just
far more obvious. But does any of this outrage have any meaningful prospects
for correcting the seventy plus year appointments dating back to the FDR insurrection?
Even more significant can the selection of any jurist turn back the dark precedent of judicial review that Marshall
plunged upon a nation that fought a hard won victory against the tyranny of the State?
By elevating Miers, personal attorney that served the interests
of a chum client, President Bush proves that he is a self confessed criminal defendant much in need of a sympathetic vote
on the highest court. So much has been written about her qualification or lack
thereof, that the public is directed to view her Senate confirmation hearings as an orgy of the strangest of bedfellows. When scoundrels like Kristol, Krauthammer and Frum pour on the coals against Harriet
Miers, one takes pause, what do these insidious neocons want? What ‘Puppet
Pilate’ judge do they have in mind? Senator Harry ‘Strangelove’
Reid’s endorsement speaks volumes. Then Pat Buchanan chimes in and sets the record straight, so you know she must be the worst of both worlds. A deep dedication to the President
should be a good disqualifier for anyone.
The standard that invokes proper perspective is that expressed
by Thomas Paine:
“Some writers have so confounded society with
government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting
our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”
The Supreme Court is the ultimate dispenser of absolution for
the State religion. Conducting a perennial ritual over nominees for the court
is a fašade with little distinction. The record of rulings from so many Republican judges proves that the only god they serve
is that of the central state. Democratic jurists have perfected the worship of
immoral indulgence, while expanding the scope of the destructive nanny society. Both
are gatekeepers for despotism and defenders of the worst form of tyranny - a popular mob democracy - stuck on stupid and manipulated
by plutocrat Mattoids.
Changing the faces on the court will never achieve a remedy
worthy of the 1776 Revolution. The descent into authoritarian oligarchy is the
uninterrupted legacy of the last century and a half. The phony promise of promoting
the public welfare has emerged as a cruel totalitarian collectivism sanctioned under judicial decree. Lawful inherent natural rights and social justice have been destroyed by jurisprudence case law, calculated
to eradicate fundamental principles. The Roberts’ reverence of erroneous
precedents coupled with Miers’ dedication to the Bush clan interests produces an unrestrained brood of lackey adjudicators
that will protect and advance additional transnational corporate dominance. The
Supreme Court is the problem, until or unless a real common law can be restored. Cloning
Scalia or Thomas won’t automatically guarantee Liberty. Short of reviving
Thomas More we are relegated to another season of discontent.
SARTRE – October 10, 2005