Judicial Supremacists and the Despotic Branch

Mark Alexander - 3/4/2005 - The Federalist Patriot

"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson

Left-judiciary Supremacists -- Justice Anthony Kennedy and Court Jesters Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- cited "national consensus" as a factor in Tuesday's Roper v. Simmons ruling. In other words, they disregarded the Constitution's prescription for federalism and republican government in the name of unmitigated democracy. Which is to say, while riding roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as they overturned the laws of 19 states, the Supremes blithely pushed the nation one step closer toward what everyone since Plato has described as governance in its most degenerative form.

This editorial explains the out of touch supremacists new willingness to claim they know what the people want better than the people do, and goes on to describe the growing willingness of the supremacists to rule based on foreign law.

There are times when a group of people talk so exclusively to each other that they lose touch with what is happening around them when it is in conflict with what their group is saying. The famous statement by a leftist leader that she "did not see how Nixon won the Presidency, she didn't know anyone who had voted for him" being a prime example. Though I did not vote for him, I knew many people who voted for Clinton. Can any intelligent person be so cloistered that they do not know a single person from the group that constitutes the majority of an election at any point in time? I think of this whenever the courts claim to speak for the people.

We are now burdened by a court system that is so out of touch in its arrogance, that the supremacists on the bench truly have no idea how the majority of Americans view them. However they claim to know what these people want, though they themselves are too gutless to ever stand for public office in front of the people. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and in recent rulings they publicly state their violation of that oath by ruling based on foreign law when it is conflict with the document they swore to uphold.

Is there anything more contemptible than to arrogantly brag about violating your duties?