There has been some angst on the internet recently concerning what might happen to the U.S. Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton were elected president and given the opportunity to appoint more liberal justices (aka judges). Let us take a look at his theory.
First of all, the supreme Court was established by the U.S. Constitution. The “s” of supreme was not capitalized in the document, but the “C” in Court was. It was the highest federal court, but it was not a god. There also was provision made for the creation of inferior Federal courts. The Constitution does not grant the supreme Court jurisdiction over all areas, or say that it has the last word on Constitutional interpretation. Furthermore, the Congress can remove supreme Court jurisdiction in certain areas. Go read Article 3.
The justices of the supreme Court were to be appointed for life, to guard against them being influenced in their opinions by running for election periodically. In theory, they were supposed to be above petty politics. While the number of justices was not specified by the Constitution, it became customary to have nine. This gave a tie breaking vote. There are 8 justices, and 1 chief justice.
The supreme Court was under executive siege under the socialist traitor Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The supreme Court was not fully cooperating with all cases regarding F.D.R.’s openly socialist New Deal programs. They were roughly divided as: 4 conservatives, 3 liberals (including Louis P. Brandeis), and 2 swing votes. (Note: Brandeis was the first Jew appointed to the supreme Court, a and was an ardent Zionist. See the cover photo of him and Rabbi Wise on Alison Weir’s book Against Our Better Judgement).
In 1937 F.D.R. introduced a legislative scheme to appoint six new justices to the supreme Court, in addition to the nine current ones. This would have given him a pro-socialist majority that would rubber stamp him if anyone dared challenge his unconstitutional laws.
One justice, John Owen Roberts, perhaps to “save” the integrity of the Court, switched his vote to support the F.D.R. position. The court was intact numerically, but ceased to defend the Constitution.
Why do we still have Roe v. Wade, ObamaCare, any gun control laws, or the Patriot Act? Because the black robed supreme Court justices, who have been derisively termed “clown in gowns”, will either not hear/grant cert to cases, or will ignore the strict construction of the Founders.
The case regarding ObamaCare would have been a 4-4 tie, except that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the pro-ObamaCare justices. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts that was appointed by the last Republican president, George W. Bush, voted to uphold ObamaCare. I find it particularly interesting that his name is John Roberts, just as was the man who flipped in F.D.R.’s time was. Bizarre.
With the death and vacancy of “conservative” Roman Catholic justice Antonin Scalia, the court is temporarily down to eight members. The religious breakdown is five Roman Catholics and three Jews. The ethnic breakdown of the five Catholics is: 1 Negro, 1 Latina, and three white guys. Obama’s nomination to replace the deceased Scalia, which Congress did not act on, was Merrick Garland –a Jew. Does it not seem a tad strange that in a country settled and legally founded almost exclusively by western European Protestants, that there is not a single ethnically European Protestant male on the Court?
To lose control of the supreme Court implies that we currently control it. We cannot lose the supreme Court, because we have already lost it.
Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.