supreme court: judicial tyranny to be reinforced

The late Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, understood the proper role of the judiciary in a republic.  He opposed the judicial activism that the Left takes for granted to further its agenda.





With Scalia’s passing, Barack Obama now has the mouth watering opportunity he has hoped for.  He can appoint (for life) another hardcore leftist to the high court.  What this means is that the judicial arrogance and tyranny coming from the Supreme Court will continue unabated and become more brazen.

Over the past several decades, the high court has been allowed to usurp more power and begin legislating, really dictating from the bench.  There are checks and balances, but these are only as good as the men and women in the other branches of government.  The Congress can set aside a Supreme Court decision if it desired to.  Congress can define the jurisdiction of the Court as to what issues the Court can address.  But, the members of Congress show no courage in opposing the ongoing judicial activism and social engineering of the Supreme Court which writes into the Constitution what it desires to be there, and ignores whatever is in the Constitution that the members of the Court do not like.

But, what of the opposition party, the Republicans, who now have majority control of the US Senate, which must give its consent to Obama’s judicial nominees?  They will ballyhoo and posture themselves as defenders of the Constitution.  They will talk tough but will not hang tough for very long.  After a while, they will, true to form, capitulate and approve Obama’s nominee (whoever it may be).

Why do I say that?  Consider the case of Justice Ginsburg.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (pictured above), nominated by Bill Clinton, was approved in 1993 with only 3 Senators opposing her confirmation.  This was despite her having been the General Counsel of the ACLU (a radical organization that pushes for radical reinterpretation of the US Constitution). Perhaps Senators feared being branded “sexist” and/or “anti-Semitic” if they voted against her confirmation.

(As an aside:  It is not “anti-Semitic” to point out that there are 3 ethnic Jews on the high court (Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan), and all 3 are judicial activists pushing a leftist agenda.  As well, it is not “anti-Semitic” to point out that some of the most hardcore big government liberal Senators are Jews – such as Schumer, Sanders, Feinstein, and Boxer.  One could also point out that most of the Bolshevik leaders in the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet government were ethnic Jews.  In the turbulent 1960s in the US, many radicals were ethnic Jews.  We think a paper addressing why so many of the proponents of radical societal change are of Jewish backgrounds might be worth researching, writing, and reading.  But, we will leave that to others. (Some such papers already have been written.))

What if I am wrong, and the Republicans uncharacteristically stand their ground and block any appointments through the end of Obama’s term in office?

Consider the possibilities.

Republican appointments to the Supreme Court have not been very good. Look at the appointments made by Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George Bush Sr., and George Bush Jr. – very few strict constructionists among them. Perhaps only four: Renquist, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.  Now, consider the losers put on the high court by these Republican presidents:  Earl Warren, William Brennan. Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, John Roberts.

Thus, even if a Republican were to win the White House in November, would his nominee to the high court be someone like Antonin Scalia?  This does not appear likely.

If Sanders or Clinton captures the presidency, the nominee to fill this vacancy on the court would be just as extreme as any nominee of Obama.

One can understand the anger among conservatives.  The proponents of the Left are like a clearly identified enemy on the battlefield in front of us.  The Republican politicians and office holders say they are on our side, but what do they so often do at critical times?  Either blindside us or stab us in the back. (Remember the song from the early 1970s, The Back Stabbers?  I think it was by the O’Jays.)  When someone continues to desert you or betray you, it makes you angry.

Does Senate majority leader McConnell inspire confidence . . . . in anyone?! Mitch ought to have retired a few years ago and gone back to Kentucky to tend his rose garden.

There is a larger societal issue here.  Today, many Americans mistake licentiousness, so-called “rights” to do as they wish, for true freedom.

Thus, we have the ideals of the American Revolution in battle with the anti-values of the French Revolution.  (Make no mistake, much of the leftist agenda and goals have their roots in the French Revolution.  Where do you think Marx got his ideas from?)  Sadly, we fear the American ideals are losing in this battle because too many myopic Americans accept counterfeit freedoms while their true freedoms are incrementally being taken from them by the central government.

Let us not give Barack Obama a free pass here.  Obama is evil.  Why?  Because his actions are serving to increase human misery in this country (and in other countries with his disastrous foreign policy blunders) and he is robbing us and future generations of our true rights.  Obama is no demigod.  He is much closer to being a demon.

copyright 2016 –


  1. The Republicans still should have waited for a name, and then found reasons to object. Coming out the way they did before Scalia was cold just makes them appear obstructionist. If Obama nominates an Appeals Court judge they confirmed after the GOP gained majority, he will be able to publicly rebuke their hypocrisy. It could impact the election efforts of Republican senators.

    1. Thanks for your comment. I think Republicans are slowly going to lose popularity and be a party in endless decline. The sad fact is that we never had a true opposition party to the Left in the US. The Republicans were not a conservative constitutional party albeit they had a few notable conservatives in their ranks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s