The kind of lawyer you (Jack Phillips) need is essentially barred from practicing law in this country. As long as lgbt advocates like Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have seats on scotus, a lawyer must first successfully challenge the integrity of the court before countering its prefabricated answer to the religious freedom argument. The scotus has rigged the system to prevent any such lawyers from ever darkening its doorway.
American lawyers are not educated in the law; rather they are indoctrinated to embrace tenets that sustain a judiciary corrupted by power; which includes subscribing to the myth that the United States Supreme Court (scotus) is the supreme branch of government and law of the land; and that prior court decisions/opinions, esoterically called “case law” or “settled law”, are tantamount to legislation. None of this is true.
Lawyers are also constrained to embrace the myth that discrimination in any form is unconstitutional; notwithstanding the fact that the United States Constitution expressly mandates discrimination with regard to age, nation origin, citizenship and residency. This not only implicitly establishes that discrimination, in and of itself, is not wrongful; but also that it is sometimes necessary.
In fact the scotus itself discriminates between Americans it deems worthy of justice and those who are not; deciding which appeals it will entertain and which it will not, as well as which lawyers may argue before the court and those who may not.
Additionally the scotus discriminates among media; restricting access to only those, like Adam Liptak and Nina Totenberg, who will perpetuate the notion that that scotus is the omnipotent law of the land.
It would take a selfless, intrepid, learned attorney to rebuke the court’s practice of deferring to prior court interpretations of the law; rather than the law itself; to refuse to indulge the court’s propensity to engage in hypothetical scenarios rather than a fair examination of the merits of the case before it; a practice born of the pervasive misconception that court decisions establish and or change laws. In that every member of scotus has expressed views which demonstrate their corruption with regard to the Constitution, any attorney challenging the court’s omnipotence would most assuredly face retaliation from the court; most likely disbarment.
The Constitution does not empower any court to invalidate legislation, however it can find that the application of a law is unconstitutional; or repugnant to the Constitution, and set aside any penalties imposed by it. However, the scotus is inclined to give deference to an unconstitutional application is it is conducive to the outcome favored by the court; another facet of its corruption.
Contrary to popular belief, however, there is one more avenue open to you, should the court fail to give you justice. The Constitution gives you the right to petition congress for redress of grievances. It also mandates that courts rule in accordance with the US Constitution and the laws of the United States. It predicates a judges tenure on his or her good behavior. An apparent failure to comply with applicable law should at the very least warrant a congressional hearing. Begin with your congressman and keep going until you are heard.
thepundit456 