ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Judicial Supremacy of the Court!

Updated on March 15, 2015

Judicial Supremacy of the Us Court System

(Today, September 17, marks the 221st anniversary of the Constitution's signing by our nation's Founders. We need to respect and preserve it!)

There are three branches of government contained within The US Constitution: legislative, executive and judicial. These three branches were designed with checks and balances so that each branch can serve as a continuing check on the others. The judicial branch, I believe, is out of balance.

Many judges continue to interpret the Constitution as a living Constitution. Some judges and Congressmen our pushing to bring in World court law when ruling of cases. I do not believe this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind. We the people must be clear in what our Constitution states. We must know our Country's history and the history of the men who fought for this Country intended. We must be willing to speak up when we feel it is not properly being interpreted. Our freedom and our childrens freedom depends upon it.

Phyllis Schlafly, in her book The Supremacists The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It, states "The U.S. Constitution vests "all" legislative powers in the Congress. That means no legislative powers are granted to the courts. Yes, over the past fifty years, judges have become increasingly activist--legislating from the bench, and writing their own policies and attitudes into the law. In the latter half of the twentieth century, some of our most far-reaching social, economic and political decisions have been made by judges rather than by our elected representatives."

Visit my site!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Are You Ready For Her?

Enough with the judges who want to make law instead of interpret law. I am not impressed with Judge Sotomayor's flippant remark when she referred to "judges making policy". How arrogant and disrespectful of the position of Appellate Court Justice! That's strike one. Her own comments are quotes in the following article Her Majesty Sonia Sotomayor vs. Rule of Law.

We the People.....

of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect

Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide

for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure

the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do

ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of

America.

Is Terror Winning in the Courts?

June 22, 2008

By Richard Miniter

America is losing the War on Terror in the courts.

Since 2002, the total number of prosecutions of terrorists has fallen every year and is now approaching pre-9-11 levels.

The percentage of terror cases that federal prosecutors refused to prosecute has climbed to 90% in 2006, up from 34% in 2002.

Part of the reason: the landmark Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio is now being used to thwart the convictions of individuals linked to al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist outfits. The 1969 domestic free-speech case effectively safeguards suspected terrorists from prosecutions. Sometimes Brandenburg is invoked by defense attorneys; more often it is employed by prosecutors as a reason to decline prosecuting a case against suspected terrorists.

Critics of the war on terror consistently contend that terrorism is a crime that should be combated in the courts, with the full panoply of civil rights for suspected terrorists. Sadly, the Brandenburg precedent-set in a starkly different time-makes it almost impossible for the government to prevail against terrorists, who are caught in planning stages, in the federal courts. If our system of justice is to play a vital role in the war on terror, the Supreme Court should narrow the scope of Brandenburg.

Methodology

While statistical information on terror cases is public, it usually requires a Freedom of Information Act request, followed by months or even years of waiting to obtain the requested information. Even then, the records delivered are often old or incomplete (some important information is classified and not releasable).

The Justice department does not routinely release statistics on terrorist prosecutions. Fortunately two major universities have been quietly tracking the federal government's anti-terrorism efforts. One is the New York University Law School. The other, a far more exhaustive storehouse of federal data, is at Syracuse University. Since 1989, Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), has systematically used the Freedom of Information Act to gather and organize Justice department statistics.

TRAC, a joint program of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and Martin J. Whitman School of Management, is supported by an array of foundations including: the Rockefeller Family Fund, the New York Times Company Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institute, founded by George Soros.

The federal statistics cited in this paper were accessed through TRAC. The analysis and conclusions are my own. In addition, I consulted a number of lawyers who are directly involved in terror cases. Their input was extremely valuable in shaping the research for this paper.

Credit: Right Side News - The Right News for America

FEDERALIST 78

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

Alexander Hamilton wrote FEDERALIST 78

"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

"For I agree, that there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."


Who Can Make Laws? Congress, Not the Judicial System

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS SET-UP TO INTERPRET EXISTING LAWS.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the ratification of treaties.

Re-writing the Constitution

A LIST OF WHAT THE JUDICIAL SUPREMACISTS HAVE DONE:

1. Censored the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools

2. Removed the Ten Commandments from public buildings and parks

3. Changed the definition of marriage

4. Banned the acknowledgment of God in public schools

5. Imposed taxes

6. Rewritten laws of criminal procedures

7. Dismantled laws that protect internal security

8. Imposed the social experimentation called forced school busing

9. Upheld racial preferences and quotas in hiring and college admissions

10.Outlawed term limits for Members of Congress

11.Rewritten laws on the conduct of elections

Judicial Supremacists have invented so-called rights:

1.The right to abortion

2.The right to same-sex marriage licenses

3.The right to show and publish pornography, even with taxpayers' money

4.The right of illegal aliens to receive taxpayer-paid benefits

Judges have assumed authorities and responsibilities that the Constitution never gave them, and they are doing great harm--to our society, our culture, our institutions, our children, and our right of self-government.

It is We the people's responsibility to let our senators know that they are not doing their job if they continue to allow judges to make LAW. Judges can be impeached by the Legislative branch.

The Judiciary Branch

The Judiciary

The duty of the interpretation of the law rests in the Judiciary. The highest court in the United States, above all others, with the final say in the what laws are Constitutional and which aren't, is the Supreme Court.

There is actually very little said in the Constitution about the Supreme Court or any of the courts. Article 3 is the shortest of the first three articles, and only the first two of the three sections have anything to do with the structure of the Judiciary. The Chief Justice is only mentioned in Article 2, concerning presidential impeachment. Judges have no Constitutionally mandated age, residency, or citizenship requirements.

Judges appointed to the bench under Article 3 courts serve their terms for as long as they wish, while in "good Behavior." Judges can be impeached by the Legislative branch.

Currently, there are nine justices of the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution does not specify the number, it has fluctuated, from as few as five to as many as ten. The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court, meaning that cases normally only come to the Court by way of appeal after appeal of the losing party. The Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction of a few types of cases, spelled out in Section 2.

The Constitution also specifies that there will be courts inferior to the Supreme Court. These courts are federal in scope and are separate from similar court setups in each state. This dual-scope judicial system is quite uncommon through other governments in the world, but reflects the historical power of the states.

In addition the Article 3 courts, there are special Article 1 courts which help carry out the duties of the Legislative branch, such as bankruptcy courts and military courts of appeal. Judges serving in Article 1 courts do not serve for life, but have set terms (such as 14 years for bankruptcy court, and 15 for military appeals court).

The current members of the Supreme Court are as follows, along with their year of appointment and president who appointed them:

John Roberts (chief) (2005, Bush)

John Paul Stevens (1975, Ford)

Antonin Scalia (1986, Reagan)

Anthony Kennedy (1988, Reagan)

David Souter (1990, Bush)

Clarence Thomas (1991, Bush)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993, Clinton)

Stephen Breyer (1994, Clinton)

Samuel Alito (2006, Bush)

Sonia Sotomayor (2009, Obama)

Elena Kagan (2010, Obama)

Credit: USConstitution

Marbury V. Madison

Checks and Balances to Protect our Constitution

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Outgoing President John Adams had issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. The document shown here bears the marks of the Capitol fire of 1898.

"A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing in the Constitution gave the Court this specific power. Marshall, however, believed that the Supreme Court should have a role equal to those of the other two branches of government.

Marbury vs. Madison

The Most Important Thing

Amendment XI (1798)

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Judges Have Too Much Power!

Do you believe our U.S. Supreme Court Judges have too much power or they abuse their power? Please vote below:

U.S. Supreme Court Judges have too much power?

See results

Elena Kagan confirmed

Never Been A Judge?

From the Christian Science Monitor (August 6, 2010)

President Barack Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court won Senate approval on Thursday, his second appointment to the court that decides abortion, death penalty and other contentious cases. The Democratic-led Senate voted largely along party lines, 63-37, to confirm the former Harvard Law School dean as the fourth female justice in U.S. history and the 112th high court member.Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, arguing government cases before the Supreme Court, when he named her in May as his choice to replace the retiring liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

Read on Elena Kagan

Patriot Post.us

Got Your Flag? I've Got Mine.

For your patriot articles, history, flags, t-shirts, news. This is a great site.

Patriot Post

I Want to Hear from My Readers - Sign in - Thanks!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • blue22d profile image
      Author

      blue22d 5 years ago

      Sharron, thanks for stopping by and reading and posting on my lens. I went to your site to visit. I am so sorry about Billy Miller and his loss of life and all family and friends that he left behind. I agree that the system is twisted. Judges and attorneys who are so liberal and don't seem to care about upholding the law, have caused our justice system to deteriorate. Many are more interested in promoting their cause they seeing that justice is done. I wish I could say that I believe it will get better but I don't have that faith, especially with the corruption I see in the government. My prayers and best wishes go out to you and your family. The justice I know will take place is when our Lord returns.

    • profile image

      anonymous 5 years ago

      DO OUR JUSTICES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER

      Lady Justice wept today as a killer walks free.. After 38 years we rejoiced in hearing a jury convict and state the conclusive guilt of this man that I now despise with a life sentence..

      You think, justice at last!!! Well, you're WRONG! Three judges on an Appeals Court decided the 12 jurors had no right to call this man guilty..Now, this man will never be held accountable for ending a life, he will again go On with his life, like he did with the other 38 free years.

      You see, no one said he was an innocent man, they state they cannot put him at the scene of the crime or find the weapon. Scott Peterson is on death row, even though they could not put him at the scene of the crime, and could not find a weapon..

      One is free, the other being put to death! Justice?

      The North Carolina jury that convicted George Hayden in May of 2010, was clearheaded and correct in its unanimous decision to convict. Victims and families of the victim cannot appeal a verdict, however, criminals are entitled to this freedom. To be a victim is an unforgettable nightmare but to become a victim at the hands of the criminal justice system is an unforgivable!.

      The evidence, however circumstantial, was overwhelming and the facts of this cold-blooded killing still bring tears to our family.

      Our family is now contending with the highly unusual finding of an appeals court that has overturn the Hayden conviction because it was based on circumstantial evidence. The family of Bill Miller was never given the opportunity to attend the appeals court hearing, while Hayden was allowed to bring support. Mr. Hayden was a former police chief, favors?? An appeal granted barely three weeks after serving one year, with no new evidence or judge error??

      Justice in this case was delayed by 38 years. Is it now to be totally denied? Can higher-ups on the judicial ladder overrule the jury process? Is circumstantial evidence never valid? Is that what this appeals court is saying? If so, a substantial number of people in jail would be released.

      This is a dangerous and wrong-headed conclusion that the appeals court reached.

      http://miraclesstillhappen36yearslater.blogspot.co...

    • profile image

      anonymous 8 years ago

      I agree. More people need to understand our Constitution and the judicial system so that they will know how it is being broken down by individual judges. They are interpreting cases by their personal opinions not Constitution law.

    • blue22d profile image
      Author

      blue22d 8 years ago

      Thank you, WhitU4ever, for your comments. Yes, I agree, that only some abuse their power. We need more people, like yourself, who follow their justices. I have been reading Clarence Thomas. He, given the chance, would vote to over turn Roe V. Wade. But, with Obama....I fear who will be appointed. We must continue to stay informed, speak up for what we the People believe and pray.

    • WhitU4ever profile image

      WhitU4ever 8 years ago

      Nice lens! I have lensrolled it to my lens on today's supreme court justices. 5 *'s! You asked in the above survey if I believe supreme court judges abuse their power. I said yes, but I don't believe that they ALL abuse it. I do believe that SOME of them are not strict constitutionalists, but use their power to legislate from the bench. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Justice Roberts seem to interpret the constitution with the intent of the original creators thereof in mind. The others either pull to the hard left or teeter back and forth. It's quite an important job that they have, and none of them should use their positions to promote a political agenda. They should all be conscientious decision makers and consider the implications of their decisions. So far, several of our current supreme court justices feel that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were mistakes. Problem is... many millions of babies will die because of it before they get another chance to rule on the issue.

    • kephrira lm profile image

      kephrira lm 8 years ago

      interesting and informative lens - 5*