United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan once used the terms vapid and vacuous to describe the United States Senate confirmation hearings; and although this characterization also applied to her own confirmation, there she expressed a more tempered view.
Nonetheless, the hearings are vacuous because congress is; and, unsurprisingly, congress has populated the court with members who are equally so.
The jurists, impaneled by the superficial, pretentious proceedings referred to as confirmation hearings, do not subscribe to the precepts of the United States Constitution; have no respect for the rule of law; are narcissistic to the extent they believe themselves justified in violating the Constitution when, in their view, the Constitution is deficient; and, are imbued with hubris born of the knowledge that many members of congress will defer to the court rather than jeopardize their next reelection bid; which means the court can usurp congress, at will, with impunity.
Take John Roberts who fancies himself an umpire whose rule book consists of “precedent” and the “considered opinions of his colleagues”. In his prepared opening statement before his confirmation hearing, Roberts did not once mention the United States Constitution; which suggests he did not consider it relevant to the position for which he had been nominated; however, he did mention “infinite possibilities”, which the judiciary committee might have regarded as ominous had it not been preoccupied in genuflection.
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is self-proclaimed “leader” of the liberal opposition on the court.
Partisanship precludes justice. In that the Constitution is non-partisan and Ginsburg has publicly stated that she believes the second amendment to the Constitution is “obsolete”, it is safe to assume that she, too, rejects the notion that the court should be contrained by the Constitution.
Anthony Kennedy is committed to exalting the sexually deviant subculture by conferring “dignity” by decree; a concept not espoused by the Constitution.
The hubris of Clarence Thomas was never more prominently displayed than when he expressly demeaned Texas legislators, and by implication, congress and several other states’ legislators by referring to their sodomy laws as “uncommonly silly”. Writing the term in his opinion also demeaned the dignity of the court because it suggested that it was silly for the court to even consider the question; which it probably would not have except for Kennedy’s crusade.
Sonia Sotomayor? Count the number of times the ladies do not vote in unison and draw your own conclusions.
Even Antonin Scalia embraces the unfounded notion that the court is constitutionally empowered to invalidate congressional legislation.
For an illustration of the court’s propensity to violate the Constitution to effect, in its view, a necessary end, one need only refer to the court’s favorite citations; the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.
The court fabricated a contrivance it calls “substantive due process”; the intent and effect of which deviates substantially from the due process clause.
It is unconstitutional for the court to cite “substantive due process” as the basis for ruling a law unconstitutional because substantive due process is not a part of the Constitution; and the court has no authority to amend the Constitution. Moreover, substantive due process provides for elevated levels of scrutiny and selective imposition of arbitrary standards; which is effectively a violation of the “equal protection” clause.
So the court violates Article V of the Constitution by amending the Constitution using a contrivance which violates the fourteenth amendment by deferring to the court’s discretion to determine who deserves the protection of the law; while at the same time, the court sanctions “hate crime” legislation which clearly violates the fourteenth amendment.
Whether or not substantive due process should be a constitutional standard is a matter for congress, not the court, to decide.
The court has abandoned the traditional enigmatic posture of the court; opting instead to pursue celebrity; appearing on talk shows, giving interviews and leaving no doubt that while the court is inclined to circumvent democracy to accommodate causes, it is vacuous when it come to justice for all.


2 thoughts on “VAPID AND VACUOUS

  1. Pingback: CONGRESS FAILS AMERICA YET AGAIN | thepundit456

  2. Pingback: GINSBURG VINDICATES THE PUNDIT456 | thepundit456

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s