All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, September 27, 2022

Finally, libs fear the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reconvenes on Monday, and for the first time in my 69 years, liberals actually are afraid of the court. 

That is a good thing because for decades, liberals have used the justices to enact legislation no Congress and few state legislatures would dare to make law. Liberal justices have imposed their will upon the land by legalizing abortion and legalizing homosexual marriages.

Along came Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. They appointed and confirmed three conservatives to the court to give the Constitution a 6-3 majority on the court.

Suddenly, liberals hate the court.

Politico ran a piece, "How the Founders Intended to Check the Supreme Court’s Power. The president and Congress can check SCOTUS' power when they believe the justices have exceeded their mandate. This might be the best way to save the court from itself."

Now liberals want to overturn Marbury versus Madison.

Politico quoted Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said, "there’s so much that’s not in the Constitution, including the fact that we have the last word. Marbury versus Madison. There is not anything in the Constitution that says that the Court, the Supreme Court, is the last word on what the Constitution means. It was totally novel at that time. And yet, what the Court did was reason from the structure of the Constitution that that’s what was intended."

Justices decided the case on February 24, 1803, when there were plenty of Founding Fathers alive to rectify the situation if they indeed wanted to rein in the court. They declined. Sure, Jefferson was miffed by the decision, but he got over it, didn't he?

I wish Sotomayor good luck in getting 38 states now to neuter the Supreme Court through an amendment.

Conservatives suffered for decades. It is the liberals' turn.

Vox whined, "The Supreme Court’s new term could be even more consequential than its last one.

"The Republican justices who overruled Roe v. Wade are only getting started."

It's political Armageddon for those who want a Soviet America.

Vox didn't like Dobbs or WV versus EPA or a dozen other decisions last term.

As the Carpenters sang, they've only just begun.

Vox whined, "But this term, a potentially even more consequential issue than the right to an abortion is on the Court’s docket: democracy itself. A single case, Moore v. Harper, threatens to fundamentally rewrite the rules governing federal elections, potentially giving state legislatures (some of which are highly gerrymandered themselves) nearly limitless power to skew those elections.

"A second case in the Court’s new term — which officially opens on Monday, October 3 — also places free and fair elections in the United States in grave peril. That case, Merrill v. Milligan, could usher in a new era of racial gerrymandering where states have more freedom to undercut black and brown political power than they’ve had since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 — a law that the Roberts Court has spent the last decade dismantling piece by piece." 

It isn't black and brown political power Vox seeks to protect. It is Communist Red political power that is at risk.

The very act that Vox champions mandates racial gerrymandering by creating minority majority districts.

Vox whined, "Just in October, the Court plans to hear two different cases that could significantly undercut US efforts to protect the environment — building on a decision from last June that weakened the EPA’s power to fight climate change. In its November session, the Court will hear a pair of cases that are widely expected to forbid universities from considering race when deciding which students to admit, effectively ending race-based affirmative action programs at those schools.

"Other cases on the Court’s docket could undercut Medicaid and erase legal safeguards intended to halt the cultural genocide of indigenous people."

That last one would allow white couples to adopt Indian children. The very people who support gay adoption oppose white adoption. Sigh.

My favorite whine from Vox was this, "Sackett v. EPA involves a difficult question of whether a wetland, which drains into a tributary, which itself drains into a creek, which in turn empties into a lake, is subject to the Clean Water Act. And it is likely that this Supreme Court will use Sackett to significantly reduce that act’s scope."

No, it would significantly reduce the EPA's misinterpretation of the act. Surely the Clean Water Act does not cover mud puddles.

Liberals had their fun. Now is the time to get serious and interpret the Constitution as written and ratified. Thanks to McConnell and Trump, we have 6 justices willing to do that.

Let the liberal tears flow.

47 comments:

  1. This is why the Demos never codified Roe. They thought they owned the Court in perpetuity

    Now liberals want to overturn Marbury versus Madison.

    Sounds good to me. The Constitution did not give the Supremes the power to make de facto law. The original intent was to send the offending legislation whence it came to be rewritten.

    Kind of like grade school.

    PS You never mess with the Sacketts. Thar's hundreds and dozens of 'em and, you give one a hard time an' thar's a army of 'em on your doorstep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louis L'Amour was one of the best authors.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely! And his stories about boxers and sailors are good, too. Em Talon a great character!

      Delete
    3. What the liberals fail to understand, is the court is merely reasserting the standing of the 10th Amendment. Which means you cannot roll the states. I'm amused with all the grandstanding by the senate on both sides of the aisle. You cannot make a federal law on abortion, Alito was pretty plain. The EPA and EEOC will also get reigned in. Much of what they do is also in violation of the 10th.

      Delete
    4. Liberals understand the 10th amendment perfectly. They are fully aware of how it threatens their agenda!

      Delete
  2. This is about the only area in which Mitch McConnell deserves a pat on the back. Almost every other decision he serves a kick in the AASS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, the majority seem to be no more than a little to the right of center. Some of their decisions don't seem to me to be based on the Constitution, but rather on what liberals tell them to do. Then there is Roberts.......

      Delete
    2. Even many people on the right aren't really right of centre. Roberts is an excellent example and so are the RINOs.

      Delete
    3. Agree. I still don't think it's proper to have McConnell's and Trump's name in the same sentence.

      Delete
    4. Correction on the court make up, its a 5-3-1 court with Roberts being alone and insignificant. He is no conservative, he's an owned cuck.

      Delete
    5. Mitch is great, the most effective Republican leader ever. He stood up to Trump over his election shenanigans and as a result all of you have turned on him. That's ridiculous.

      Delete
    6. Which of these six stalwarts are conservatives? By conservatives I believe you would call Pence, Romeny, McCain conservative. My by guage three are conservative, the other three are centerists. The liberals are anarchists or worse since they have no use for the constitution or the law.

      Delete
    7. McConnell just gave dems the CR without getting anything in return. Like the BORDER!! Mitch is as bad as the Insane Left, McConnell & RINO Ryan helped build the UniParty & Destroy the R party. Bas ta rd

      Delete
  3. Regarding white /native
    Adoption. A case in Oregon where the adoptive parents bent over backwards to accommodate the child's heritage kept contact with the child's maternal grandmother and things were fine. The the state, citing Cultural reasons pulled the little girl from the home and gave her to the Paternal grandmother . Who was not a good person as was the father who killed the mother. He was dead, but grandma was going to see to it that the child was going to be raised her way.
    Never head from her again. 2DC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything the liberals touch, they destroy. Families are high priority on their destruction list.

      Delete
    2. Even when they are not natives, the CPS goes overboard to keep the kids w the parents. We have had several kids under 5 who have been killed by the parents in my state. They had willing adopters that were good for the kids, but handed them back to a death sentence. Very few held accountable. It's sad.

      Delete
    3. Agree this one inolved a family member in emergency services.

      Delete
    4. Yes, liberals do destroy everything they touch. And they want to take down the family very badly. It makes me think of the age old, never ending struggle of good vs evil.

      Delete
  4. Good column, Don. Let the Liberals fear the Supreme Court. It's about time. The courts in Canada, including our Supreme Court, have been used in the same way by libs to get through legislation that never would have made it at the ballot box.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is Turtle McConnell or Jive Talking McCabe going to file suit against Pedo Biden for his unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Order that forgives student loans? Then it can be smacked down by SCOTUS. REPUBLICANS….Stop Whining and Start Battling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/first-lawsuit-filed-block-bidens-student-loan-handout

      It is starting.... I am sure there will be many more lawsuits.

      Delete
    2. Good, let there be many more.

      Delete
    3. Let the desert of American politics bloom with a million lawsuits!

      Delete
    4. Let's get this straight. McConnell doesn't have a damn thing to do with this lawsuit.

      Delete
    5. Ednkh, give Mitch time after the election he will file an amicus brief supporting Joe and the ho.

      Delete
    6. You expect the leaders of the Uniparty to stop the feeding at the trough? All spending and taxing issues should be approved directly by voters, not those owned by the powerful and wealthy. They do not represent nor servie the people. They serve their paymasters.

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCdLKXNF3w

      Delete
    2. Tears for Fears' 2022 version

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-o1N2swMw

      Delete
  7. Let us toast as we drink in the sweet taste of bitter Leftist tears.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If I remember correctly, congress came within a couple of votes of impeaching John Marshall for his abuse of the Supreme Courts' power. That sufficiently chastened Marshall and future courts to the point that the court never dared to overturn any other legislation until 1857 when Rager Taney overturned the Missouri Compromise and other legislative acts in Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. After the Civil War was when the Supreme Court seriously began abusing its power culminating in the Warren and Burger courts trashing the Constitution completely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly what did Taney overturn? His reasoning was correct pertaining to the law and facts that existed at that time rather than by current standards. The people who trampled on the Missouri compromise were the radicals in Boston who funded crazies like John Brown who sought race war and ultimately plunged the nation into a war that killed a million people due to the facilitation by despots like Lincoln.

      Delete
  9. I hate to disagree, but we have 5 justices willing to do that, and one who always wants to split the baby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate to disagree but we don't even have five we can count on to rule Constitutionally. The new justices that many here praise Trump and McConnell are usually very disappointing and only occasionally rule in a way that makes sense. If you are counting on a Roberts court to fix things, you will be disappointed.

      Delete
  10. While I admire your optimism, I think you overstate the number of conservative justices. There are four and two halves. Roberts and Kavanaugh aren't very conservative at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gorsuch declared that the entire eastern half of Oklahoma is an Indian Reservation, and he based this on a Federal Law that specifically stated it was not.

      So much for "originalism".

      Delete
  11. The Constitution clearly established 3 CO-EQUAL Branches of Govt. In Marbury v Madison, the SCOTUS declared themselves to be the only one that could say what the Constitution actually meant.

    That has as much legitimacy as if, say, Obama declaring that the President, alone, had the final say in what the Constitution means, or then Pelosi declaring, "No, Congress alone has authority to decide what the Constitution means".

    Checks and Balances.

    SCOTUS invented the notion that abortion was somehow a Constitutional "right". A President and a majority of the Senate disagreed, and through the lawful means of checking SCOTUS, appointed a few Justices that they knew would overturn that lawless decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the branches were intended to be co-equal, why does Congress have the power to remove a matter from the jurisdiction of the Court? If the branches were co-equal, why is the executive charged with faithfully executing the laws enacted by Congress? This co-equality nonsense is 20th Century progressive stuff.

      Delete
  12. The founders never intended SCOTUS to be a coequal branch. In fact the regard for the judiciary so was so high only one federal court is required in the Constitution. The resignation of justices during its early years demonstrates the power the court had and the power it had.

    I agree with the rest of your observations. The court needs to be restrained. The Constitution also states clearly that the courts have jurisdiction over the laws that the Congress allows. Time to stop the "commerce clause and necessary to good governace" bs that the courts use to increase the power of government.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided. The case should have been remanded to a court of original jurisdiction. Marshall invented a power not granted the Court by the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Except the Court is only about 5/4 conservative majority.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I can't believe Turtle's name is being celebrated in this article... The guy is as DS and anti-American as they come...

    ReplyDelete
  16. At best, it's a slim 4 to 5... Roberts is a RINO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...liberals have used the justices to enact legislation..."

      Don, a minor point, but courts don't "enact legislation". Legislation is the pervue of the 'legilature(s)'.

      Rather, the sentence would read more accurately, "...liberals have used the justices to enact policies..."

      Delete
  17. I made more than fifty dollars every hour. It's time to take some action and you can join it too. It is a simple, dedicated and easy way to get rich. Three weeks from now you will wish you had started today. For more details
    visit this weblink.. Www.Profit97.Com

    ReplyDelete