The Supreme Court was originally envisioned as a nonpartisan third branch of the government. With lifetime appointments and a mission to defend the Constitution, it was believed 主语从句that the Court would remain above the political fray.
But about 50 years ago, the court decided 宾语从句that with penumbras and emanations, it could discover things in the Constitution 定语从句that are not actually written there. Justices were no longer merely interpreting the Constitution; they were rewriting it, under the guise of interpretation, to suit the political leadership定语从句 that had appointed them.
With this foray into politics, the Supreme Court inevitably became part of the swamp. The justices are no longer scholars 定语从句who understand the Constitution and its supporting documents; now they’re political players. That’s 表语从句why Supreme Court appointments have become so contentious.
As political players, the justices have used their newfound power to “discover” a whole host of “rights” 定语出价that are not actually written in the constitution. They’ve discovered:
- A right to privacy
- A right to abortion
- A right to same-sex “marriage”
- A right for the government to seize private property for the benefit of private enterprises
- A right for the government to regulate commerce within states
状语从句While the justices have been busy inventing new rights, they’ve been missing in action when it comes to actually defending those rights 定语从句which are written in the Constitution. They had a chance to defend our right to free and fair elections. Yet with evidence of massive fraud in the 2020 election, they chose not to get involved.
The right to bear arms is a key element of the Bill of Rights. Yet 230 years after this right was codified in the Constitution, it’s still a controversial issue. 状语从句While the Court dances around the edge of this issue, it refuses to make a clear and unambiguous statement 同位语从句that this is a fundamental individual right, 定语出价which no state has the right to restrict. 状语从句Even though the Constitution says it, the court will not reaffirm it.
Court support for our even most sacred right, freedom of religion, has softened in recent years. In South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, the Supreme Court held 宾语从句that California could not continue to order the closure of churches during the pandemic. However, a reading of the ruling reveals that only three justices (Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch) held 宾语从句that freedom of religion trumps a state’s emergency orders. Three other justices (Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) simply held that the state could not place more severe restrictions on churches than it did for other businesses. The Court reached the right decision, but only three justices held宾语从句 that our rights to free exercise of religion could not be restricted! The Court failed to recognize any fundamental difference between churches and any other business. Presumably, 状语从句had California not penalized churches more than other businesses, the court would have found that A-OK. Apparently, in the Court’s eyes, God-given rights are subject to governmental oversight.
None of this has gone unnoticed by the citizenry. A recent Ipsos poll found宾语从句 that 63% of adults now support term limits for Supreme Court justices. Clearly, the people have noticed the Court’s relocation to swampland and want to take back control. In his attempts to avoid controversy, Justice Roberts has instead demonstrated宾语从句 that the Supreme Court, like the rest of the federal government, needs to be taken to the woodshed.
John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star, Idaho. He is a retired engineer with 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He currently writes at the American Free News Network (americanfreenewsnetwork.org). He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
Follow Me 👉🏿
