Supreme Court

On Every Question of Construction

A couple of items in the news lately have brought the judiciary back into the consciousness of the American public; the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and the recent decision by federal judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin in which she ruled that the National Day of Prayer is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In the rulings of both justices we find an egregious disrespect for the plain meaning of the Constitution, and it is a failure of the American people to learn the Constitution that has allowed us to stray so far.

As a nation, we have reached a point where we bestow upon the courts an unjustified level of deference to their perceived wisdom. In fact, the Founding Fathers created the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches, vested as they are with lifetime appointments.

Thomas Jefferson wrote (in a letter to William C. Jarvis, 1820) that “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.” Yet today we have allowed the courts to be elevated to the level of an oligarchy, where we accept rulings that are clearly unaligned with the Constitution without so much as a whimper.

Podcast: Post-HCR Threats, “Control the People,” ObamaCare Impact, Nullification, Hank Skinner case, Guest: Jeff Scott

This week, Brett was re-joined by Jason and UL contributor, Jeff Scott, also from the Jeff Scott Show.

This week’s topics include:

Podcast: Jim Bunning, 2nd Amendment, Health Care Reform, Reconciliation, Extremism, Puppycide,Guests: Doug Deal & Mike Hassinger

This week, Jason and Brett talk with United Liberty contributors Doug Deal and Mike Hassinger.

Their discussion covered:

Podcast: Scott Brown, SCOTUS, Citizens United, Air America, “Birther” Bill, Guests: Eric von Haessler & Mike Hassinger

Jason and Brett were joined by Eric Von Haessler and Mike Hassinger this week, returning to the “normal” format after two consecutive shows that were a little out of the ordinary.

Their discussion covered:

Podcast: Senate Retirement, Air Marshals, Full Body Scanners, Michael Yon, ObamaCare, Pottawattamie vs. McGhee, & More

Jason and Brett traveled to Birmingham, Alabama this weekend, gathering quite a panel to discuss the political news of the week.  They were joined by Charles Kennedy, Austin Wilkes, Shana Kluck, Stephen Gordon, and Brooklyn Roberts.

The discussion covered:

You Have No Constitutional Right To Not Be Framed

Did that title catch you off guard?  When I read that those words came from U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, I was surprised as well.

Last week, I was party to a political conversation with several others that included the subject of the death penalty and stricter mandatory sentencing for first offense felonies.  When I was among the few dissenters as those issues made their way through our conversation, some of the others questioned why I was “being soft on crime.”  After explaining that I think that there are far too many instances of police and prosecutorial misconduct in investigations and trials where new evidence, recanted testimony, or the introduction of DNA evidence exonerates an innocent man or women, I was no longer seen as “soft on crime.”  I am sure that my explanation did not sway a complete shift in the positions of the others conversing, they now have another perspective on the American criminal justice system.

This story further solidifies my stance that today’s justice system is one that seems to have a growing trend of police and prosecutors closing cases and padding statistics rather than ensuring the person jailed is the right person.  In a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, Council Bluffs, Iowa prosecutors contend that their misconduct, which includes knowingly withholding evidence that pointed to a different (and white) suspect and relying on a known “liar and perjurer” in a case against two young black men over thirty years ago, should be immune from civil liability.  The official position of these Iowa prosecutors, backed by the federal government and other prosecutors nationwide, is that citizens have no expectation not to be framed by them.

New Year Predictions by the UL Staff

John Killian

* Barack Obama will realize that Congress is not ready to go along with his progressive agenda. Many Southern and rural Midwestern Democrats were elected as pro-life conservative Democrats. Hence, his Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) will never see the light of day.
* With nervousness on the economy, Obama will not push for Nationalized Health Care. You will see some adding around the edges, but no major increases in federal programs. Obama’s advisers will warn him about the effect of more spending and especially, more taxes on our fragile economy.

Bader-Ginsburg’s Trump Comments Beyond Inappropriate


“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” ~ Joseph Story (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, called the “Father of American Jurisprudence”), 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution

I suppose we can finally abandon any pretense that the judiciary is still a neutral body rendering opinions based on an impartial interpretation of the Constitution as written. Rather, the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, has become a supra-legislative oligarchy of nine (or eight, for the time being) which imposes its own version of morality and “social justice” upon the roughly 315 million Americans who are expected to abide by its diktats.

Two recent examples tell us all we need to know in this regard.

First, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner a few weeks ago declared his unbridled contempt for the Constitution he is sworn to uphold, stating “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century…Let’s not let the dead bury the living.”

Opinion: SCOTUS Leads Assault on Religious Liberties

Leftists in this country like to say that they are “pro-choice”. To that I say…”bull***”! They are only pro-choice when it comes to killing the unborn, but not on education, or how much of your money you keep, or whether you get to manage your own retirement, or what kind of light bulbs you use, or how much water comes out of your shower head.

Leftists proclaim to be the embodiment of tolerance. To that I say…well, I think you know.

Leftists in this country are celebrating this week’s release of a Supreme Court decision, and a non-decision, both of which portend dark times ahead for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and protection of conscience.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law requiring abortion facilities in the state to 1) employ abortionists who have admitting privileges at a local hospital, and 2) meet the same surgical standards as other outpatient surgical centers. The need for both of these common-sense regulations should be obvious.

The trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell a few years ago revealed just what houses of horror many of the nation’s abortion clinics are. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three newborn babies in the minutes after they survived his botched abortions. He took the helpless, crying, wiggling babies and cut their spinal cords with scissors. He also killed another woman, a 41-year old refugee, who bled out after he punctured her insides during an abortion. Prosecutors say there was ample evidence that he’d killed hundreds of other surviving babies, and at least several more women.

Gruber and the Obamacare Mandate, henceforth to be known as a ‘Sin Tax’

Jonathan Gruber

Back in 2012, when the Supreme Court took up the issue of whether or not the Affordable Care Act — or Obamacare — was constitutional, there was much gnashing of teeth from conservatives when Chief Justice John Roberts came back with the deciding opinion that, rather than throwing the law out the window, the individual mandate would be considered a tax, thereby diminishing its violation of the commerce clause (which essentially says you can’t be forced to purchase something).

Cut to the past few weeks when one Jonathan Gruber, architect of Obamacare at large, is caught on tape — over and over and over — talking about how he and the Obama administration designed the law so that your average (stupid) voter would never know what they were doing behind the scenes (insert evil laugh). Amid his many, almost cartoonish, statements about the dummies (that’s you and me kids) he’s forced to share air with, he makes a comment about how the designers were determined to keep the CBO from scoring the mandate a tax. He speaks as if that was a killer to the law, hence all the liar liar stuff to avoid that scenario. And yet, that is exactly what SCOTUS and Roberts ended up doing.

Conservatives hoping for a different ruling were pretty miffed at old Roberts. But, as this American Thinker piece points out, Roberts got it right. And very likely made the forthcoming challenges to the law — like King v. Burwell, and definitely read this SCOTUSblog piece on the hypocrisy of the more liberal judges regarding the Obama administration’s signature law — easier to decide. From American Thinker:

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.