SCOTUS: ACTIVISTS AND ADVOCATES

Untitled

WHERE THE HELL IS CONGRESS71843-full

The Supreme Court of the United States (scotus) has long since abandoned any pretense that its decisions are well founded in the language of the United States Constitution (the Constitution). The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”; notwithstanding, scotus has increasingly usurped the congress.
Writing for the Burger court in BOWERS v. HARDWICK, Justice Byron White wrote, “Striving to assure itself and the public that announcing rights not readily identifiable in the Constitution’s text involves much more than the imposition of the Justices’ own choice of values on the States and the Federal Government, the Court has sought to identify the nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial protection.”
The word “protection” is both telling and foreboding in that it portends scotus’ presumption of a mandate not articulated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution charge or empower the judiciary to “protect” anyone or anything other than the integrity of the judiciary; which it has failed to do.
Despite its misapprehension of Article III of the Constitution, the Burger scotus correctly found that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy or, by implication, any sexual activity whatever.  In Loving v Virginia scotus acknowledged an implied right to engage in normal sexual intercourse pursuant to the fundamental societal need for procreation; but at the time sodomy was a criminal offense.
Not until Lawrence v Texas would it become clear to all but scotus that Bowers was a contrivance. Georgia had declined to prosecute so Bowers sued because the objective was to have scotus declare same gender sodomy a fundamental right. Proponents of the effort resolved that they had simply reached the wrong scotus; Lawrence was the sequel. Even Kennedy, writing for the Rehnquist Court, noted the glaring similarities.
In Lawrence, a false report of a weapons disturbance brought police to the residence. A third person was conveniently available to admit police so that Lawrence and Garner could continue having anal sex until witnessed by the police. They were duly charged and convicted in accordance with the laws of Texas, as they had hoped to be. With an advocate in the person of Anthony Kennedy sitting on scotus, proponents felt confident of success; Kennedy did not disappoint.
Justice Anthony Kennedy proved to be an invaluable ally to the homosexual subculture by bulldozing its cause through the Rehnquist court and later the Roberts Court; trashing the integrity of the scotus, the family paradigm, the  institution of marriage, and his own credibility in the process.
In a recent interview, scotus Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg described the Roberts Court as “activist”. She then went on to identify herself as the leader of the court’s liberal faction. In point of fact, with activists Roberts and Kagan, advocate Kennedy, liberal Ginsburg and Thomas’ inclination toward lackadaisical, the Roberts Court is, by far, more pernicious than mere activism. It is less grounded in the Constitution than any other scotus and seems totally unacquainted with Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s