Attention

All comments are subject to approval by Moderators. Any off-topic comments will be rejected. Thanks for your cooperation!

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Supreme Court Signaling

by Thornton Crowe

The Supreme Court's reinstatement of the Trump Administration travel ban was  high win for Americans yesterday as it could mark the beginning of the end of this massive judicial overreach we've seen since Thurgood Marshall's days on the bench.

Marshall was known for his blatant politically-charged opinions and abuse of power but given he was the first Black Justice, many turned a blind eye to it. The backlash of such negligence has caused many problems throughout the years since. Unfortunately, many Liberal politicians saw this as a way to enact legislature that they [politicians and special interest groups] knew wouldn't curry favor with the voting public.

With the 9th and 4th Circuit, the insane liberal bent on bringing in people who wish to terrorize and move us towards other governing principles like Sharia Law, only proves the lower courts contain people who do not take their positions on the bench (or oath) seriously. They see it as more of a political position rather than a judicial one. This is very dangerous for our society as we've seen for decades; however, as of late, it's far more damaging.

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision should be rattling many judicial activists' cages because it can be seen as a signal the high court will no longer sit idly by while they play politics with our jurisprudence. In his well-penned opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made a strong statement about the separation of powers and the need honor it regardless of personal politics. Furthermore, the 9-0 concurrence demonstrated the Court's dedication to the US Constitution for which this separation is clearly defined.

Perhaps we will now witness a new trend; however, many lower court judges won't follow this commitment to our jurisprudence without a massively expensive struggle. Think about it, all these court cases cost Americans billions to retain what has been our Rule of Law for well over a two centuries. This is simply unacceptable in both short term and long term goals because it takes away what the courts were really designed to oversee - uphold our laws and righting wrongs.

Should President Trump revisit Thomas Jefferson's truculent actions in 1803 by abolishing some of these lower courts in order to preserve our governance principles? While it would create much scuttlebutt from the Left, our country is far too valuable to just let unelected ideologues go unmolested.

Maybe the time has come for us to re-commit in total to our Constitution and stop tromping on majority's rights and freedoms to placate the minority. Perceived freedom for the few shouldn't be at the expense of freedom for the many.

11 comments:

JoeAlbero said...

Making America Great Again!

Anonymous said...

It amazing people don't understand for every dollar spent on these cases of abuse cost us money that could be better spent in other areas like helping the poor afford quality healthcare and help create career jobs in this country. It shows just how selfish some judges and lawyers are as they waste taxpayer money on nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Very well stated!

Anonymous said...

Very good article.

Anonymous said...

Abolish the 9th. They have a 90% overturn rate and working hard to achieve 100%. Cut them loose. They're doing nothing but wasting space. Cut out the middle man.

Concerned Retiree said...

Abolishment would be to good for them but it is a definite excellent start. They have to be punished for the abuse of tax dollars and malfeasance in office. Drain the swamp.

Rebel Without a Clue said...

Abolish the 4th as well!!! Hopefully, Maryland will get some gun rights passed then!

Anonymous said...

The founding fathers had balls of steel. They went through the revolution and persevered through life we can only imagine. It wasn't easy forming this experiment andit sure isn't for the faint at heart to continue its upkeep. Trump is the only one in DC today who has such resolve. Let's hope he looks for historical guidance to guide him as he serves as our President.

Anonymous said...

Laura Ingraham was on FOX this aAM and put a different spin on it. Her idea "Justices Should Go Run For Office' If They Want To Legislate" makes sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Another over the top absurd comment by someone who must have studied US history at MatchBook Univ. (or was it "UVA"?).

Thomas Jefferson did not abolish any of the federal courts, truculently or otherwise.

The Supreme Court's action yesterday was "per curiam" and brief; it did not address the merits -- not very significant precedent.

Anonymous said...

Should be 2 Term (4 yr) limits for ALL of these........