Rethinking Judicial Activism & Judicial Review

American history and politics were built upon liberty, not security or obedience to authority. The Supreme Court, an unbounded, unaccountable body, has been operating outside their constitutional confines for too long.

SCOTUSCriminals usually have victims. When a person commits a murder, rape, or theft, it is because they have predetermined that their compelling interests trumps your rights to life, liberty, and property. A crime is committed. When the Supreme Court (part of the government) decides that a “compelling government interest” trumps your rights (the establishment of which preexisted the government), they have committed a criminal act, even when it’s in the name of safety or the greater good.

Challenging this in academic or political circles is difficult and usually receives the astounding equivalency to “I went to school, MAN.” Thus far, I’ve had two PhD professors (A lawyer and a political scientist) tell me to my face that it doesn’t matter if it’s not in the Constitution. Essentially arguing, or assuming, they have the power because they said so. Without an understanding of the letter or the spirit, they totally disregard Article I, Sec 8, Clause 18 and the Tenth Amendment, just like the Supreme Court.

Judicial Activism, or judges legislating from the bench, was listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence four times more often than no taxation without representation. When a court opinion becomes ruling and overturns a law or the final word, the Justices, who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, become lords and masters over it. ThisSCOTUS 3 is not balance. In this Constitutional Republic, Judicial Review is Lawlessness.

“Marbury v. Madison! Marbury v. Madison! That establishes Judicial Review, the Supreme Court said so.” That has been the cry of academic scholars, lawyers, professors, and historians since 1803. The entire system we currently have is based on a colossal fraud.

When John Adams, a Federalist, lost his second term in office to Thomas Jefferson in 1800 because of public outrage for signing the egregious edicts known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, he decided to stick it to Jefferson and his Democratic Republicans one last time. After the results were out, in what some would consider to be a jerk move, Adams appointed “Midnight Judges,” forty two Federalists to the bench as a hedge of protection to defend future Federalist Party legislation. When Jefferson moved into the White House with his Secretary of State Madison, they found 17 undelivered letters of appointment called “Writ of Mandamus” and pretended they never saw them.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

When Marbury sued Secretary Madison for his appointment, the man who should have delivered the letter in the first place, former Secretary of State for John Adams, John Marshall himself, was now presiding over this case. And the rest is history.

The courts have a legitimate purpose to establish the intent of the existing law as a provision for proper enforcement, to settle disputes between the states, and to enforce contracts. To throw off such laws to advance political agendas of or simply because they do not agree puts the power to overthrow the entire system into the hands of an un-elected majority of five. This is known as Judicial Activism or judges legislating from the bench.

Proponents to judicial activism or judicial review equate it to the concepts of “checks and balances” and “separate but equal.” Yes, checks and balances were built into the Constitution; however, the phrase “separate but equal” refers to the status of nationhood relative to other powers of the Earth as specified in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

The three branches of government were not only listed in the Supreme Law of the Land in their order of importance, they were also listed from the most powerful to the least. The Legislative is given eighteen specific enumerated powers, the Executive has eleven, and the Judicial has seven.  For 150 years the Supreme Court assembled in the Old Senate Chambers at the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court Building was not even built until 1935 during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. If the founders had intended for them to have a building, they would have given them one.

SCOTUS 4The history of the Supreme Court has been one of a twisted, tortured, and mangled legacy of inverse decisions based on the “contemporary community standards” of the day. Compelling interests, opinions, and contemporary community standards are not law.

Appointed judges are confirmed by a process that many US Senators call “political theater.” Who holds the US Supreme Court Justices accountable, especially when they get it wrong? Who is supposed to hold them accountable? Contrary to popular belief, Justices are not appointed for life. Article III of the US Constitution says they are appointed for “good behavior.” Congress has the power to impeach, and they have. In the early years, judges have been removed from the bench for adultery, profanity, and public intoxication. It is unlikely they will ever be removed again for these reasons.

Bad behavior is not limited to power grabs and personal misconduct. What if they refer to foreign laws in their decisions and abdicate their powers of jurisdiction and declare the World Court, FISA Courts, and Vaccination Courts, and are superior? What kind of behavior is that?

We all have court opinions that we’ve disagreed with and those that we have agreed with. Regardless of where we stand on the issues, how we do things is just as important as why we do them. Judicial Review is Lawlessness, whether we like the results or not. A push-back is long overdue.

Although calling your congressman and telling them to begin impeachment proceedings when justices go off the deep to get them removed won’t likely yield immediate results, or any, it’s a move in the right direction. If they ignore you, fire them. It’s time to light the fire under your representatives and make them obey. It’s time to rein in this ridiculous unconstitutional joke that act as if they have no firm grip on the fundamentals, the out of control and often criminal activities of the US Supreme Court.


2 thoughts on “Rethinking Judicial Activism & Judicial Review

  1. kdf podatki zwrot podatku z holandii forum

    You can definitely see your enthusiasm in the work you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. Always go after your heart. “The only way most people recognize their limits is by trespassing on them.” by Tom Morris.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *