NOT the law of the land
Everywhere we turn today we find those who think immoral, unconstitutional judicial opinions are the law. This is especially true in Washington. But nothing could be further from the truth. Such a pernicious notion is in fact a coup d'etat against our republican form of constitutional self-government.
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despot...ism of an oligarchy...The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804
“…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
Part of the problem
The Supreme Court is supreme only over the inferior courts, not over God, or nature, or the Constitution, or the other branches of government, or over We the People. If you think otherwise, you are part of the problem.
U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: ‘A Fetus Is Not a Person’ Under the Law
From Christian News Network:
"While some have stated that Gorsuch had to answer in such a manner in order to be confirmed, 2016 America’s Party presidential candidate Thomas Hoefling wrote on social media on Thursday that those who claim the name of Christ should proclaim truth no matter the cost.
“The way I look at it, no job is worth having for which you have to hitch your wagon to genocide, and dehumanize tens of millions of innocent little boys and girls, and defy God and nature and the Constitution, and support a coup d’etat by pretending that we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of in a free constitutional republic,” he said.
No job is worth that
The defenders of Gorsuch:
"Well, he had to answer that way, or he couldn't be confirmed."
The way I look at it, no job is worth having for which you have to hitch your wagon to genocide, and dehumanize tens of millions of innocent little boys and girls, and defy God and nature and the Constitution, and support a coup d'etat by pretending that we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of in a free constitutional republic.
"What does it profit a man to gain the world, and lose his soul?"
These U.S. Senators have no clothes.
I've ripped on Trump and Gorsuch aplenty. For that I don't apologize one bit. They deserve it. But it's time for a moment to point out how worthless these perfumed princes and princesses of the United States Senate really are.
Not only do Supreme Court nominees come before them and assert unconstitutional Judicial Supremacy, which is a coup d'etat against our form of constitutional government, the Senators expect them to do so. It's required for confirmation. A wink and a nod for the continued mass murder of millions, tens of millions, of little boys and girls is required for confirmation. A wink and a nod for the continued destruction of the natural family, the way God created it, is now required.
The founders of this republic wouldn't recognize what these people have created.
It's a national disgrace.
And it is going to destroy us, and our posterity, if we don't combat and defeat it.
Senate confirmation hearing, day three. Asked by Senator Dick Durbin whether the intentional taking of unborn life is wrong, Judge Neil Gorsuch replied that the Supreme Court created a law that makes the unborn child "not a person."
"The Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person, for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That [decision] is the law of the land. I accept the law of the land." -- Judge Neil Gorsuch, 3-22-2017
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Trump and the GOP leadership said "repeal and replace." Trump supporters heard "repeal." But what the Republican leaders really meant was "no repeal and lots of replace," i.e., "we can do socialism better than Obama."
Okay, I take it back. What we really have here is a failure on the part of Republicans to discern that Trump and the GOP leadership are a bunch of unprincipled, socialist deceivers.
Who is supreme?
Well, after three days of hearings, the verdict is in. According to Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, little people are not people, and it is therefore perfectly okay to murder them. It's also "settled law" that men can "marry" men and women can "marry" women. Why? Because the Supreme Court says so, and anything the Supreme Court says is the supreme law of the land. Even if it obviously defies God, and nature, and the Constitution of the United States, and violates the oath that all of these people have sworn before God.
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804
More of the same
There's not any doubt that Gorsuch is a judicial supremacist. We already knew this from his writings. But his testimony before the Senate has made it crystal clear. He said it. He thinks court opinions are the law of the land.
Gorsuch will do nothing to stop the abortion holocaust, protect marriage, or to put government back within its appropriate bounds.
Nothing but more of the same.
Betraying the babies
If you listen carefully to the exchanges between Gorsuch and the Senators questioning him, you would gather a few things:
1. It's totally inappropriate for the president to care one whit about the ongoing daily murder of thousands of innocent babies, or the most important obligations of his oath of office, and he should therefore NEVER dare to question a potential judicial nominee about this, no matter how many empty promises he made to the constituency that elected him.
2. It's totally inappropriate for the Senate to care one whit about the ongoing daily murder of thousands of innocent babies, or the most important obligations of their oaths of office, and they should therefore NEVER dare to question a potential judicial nominee about this, no matter how many empty promises they have made for decades to the constituencies that elected them.
3. It's totally inappropriate for a judicial nominee to have any public opinion about the matter, either. According to Gorsuch, abortion is the law of the land, set in stone by the judicial precedent decided upon by our judicial rulers.
Left out of the whole process entirely, of course, are the innocent children, and the stated purposes and explicit requirements of the Constitution, and equal protection under the law, and due process, and justice, and the rule of law, and the laws of nature and nature's God.
One must ask, why are our elected officials in the executive and legislative branches judicial supremacists? Why are they not even the least bit jealous of their own legitimate authority and power? Well, the answer is very simple: lacking any real convictions, they don't want to have to muster the kind of courage that it would take to stand up and fulfill their own true responsibilities. It's better to leave the hard decisions to someone else, even at the cost of more than sixty million innocent lives.
The Gorsuch hearings are nothing but kabuki theater. We're being treated to the left wing of the Judicial Supremacist Party and the right wing of the Judicial Supremacist Party questioning an obvious Judicial Supremacist. Of course, he's giving them all of the expected Judicial Supremacist non-answers, for which he will obviously receive confirmation. And the coup d'etat against republican, constitutional self-government, will, of course, continue absolutely unabated.
Gorsuch declines to criticize Roe
When he ran for President, Donald Trump promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would "overturn Roe v. Wade."
At Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearing, however, Judge Neil Gorsuch revealed that Donald Trump had not asked him to overrule Roe v. Wade. "That is not what judges do," Gorsuch said.
In other opportunities at the hearing, Gorsuch declined to defend the right to life of unborn children. Rather, Gorsuch said Roe v. Wade was "precedent" that has been "reaffirmed."
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: In that interview, did he [Trump] ever ask you to overrule Roe. v. Wade?
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH: No, Senator.
GRAHAM: What would you have done, if he had asked?
GORSUCH: Senator, I would have walked out the door. That is not what judges do.
SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY: Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. "Reliance interest" considerations are important there.
GORSUCH: For a judge, precedent is a very important thing. We don't go reinvent the wheel every day. And that's the equivalent point of the law of precedent. We have an entire law about precedent, the law of judicial precedent. We have precedent about precedent, if you will.
And that's what [my] 800-page book is about. It expresses a mainstream, consensus view of twelve judges from around the country, appointed by, as you point out, presidents of both parties. Great minds. Justice Breyer was kind enough to write a forward to it.
And in it, we talk about factors that go into analizing precedent. Many considerations about precedent. There are many of them. You alluded to some of them. The age of the precedent--a very important factor. The "reliance interests" that have built up around the precedent. Has it been reaffirmed over the years? What about the doctrine around it? Has it built up, shored up? Or has it become an island, as you point out? These are all relevant considerations. Its workability is a consideration, too. Is it practical--can people figure out how to abide it? Or is it just too confusing for the lower courts and their administration?
Those are all factors that a good judge will take into consideration when examining any precedent. You start with a heavy, heavy presumption in favor of precedent.
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Since we're on Roe--I wasn't going to begin with this, but I well recall the time we spent in my office, and we talked about precedent. And in my opening remarks, I indicated that if anything had super-precedent, Roe did, in terms of the numbers, and I've put that in the record.
Here is why it becomes of concern. The President said that he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe. You pointed out to me that you view precedent in a serious way, in that it added stability to the law. Could you elaborate on the point that you made in my office on that?
JUDGE NEIL GORSUCH: I would be delighted to, Senator. Part of the value of precedent--it has lots of value. It has value in and of itself, because it's our history, and our history has value intrinsically. But it also has an instrumental value, in this sense: it adds to the determinacy of law. . . .
Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward. . . .
FEINSTEIN: Do you view Roe as having super-precedent?
GORSUCH: It has been reaffirmed many times.
So help me God
"Independent" was the word of the day, in the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearing. By "independent," the senators meant that we are all dependent upon the judiciary and its arbitrary will. (Only the judiciary is allowed to be "independent," you see.)
Unmentioned was the independence of all three branches--the Founders' ingenious device that keeps tyranny in check. The judiciary is independent. The executive is independent. The legislature is independent. Even the people, said Thomas Jefferson, are independent ultimately "of all but the moral law."
Sadly, moral law is one thing that Gorsuch believes must be discarded.
At the hearing, one of the senators glowingly praised a previous Gorsuch statement, which advocated a moral vacancy in the judiciary:
"[Judges should] apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be--not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions[.]" (Neil Gorsuch, 2016 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Of Lions and Bears, Judges and Legislators, and the Legacy of Justice Scalia, 2016)
Gorsuch is wrong. Without the check of moral convictions ("so help me God"), a federal judge cannot fulfill his oath, which reads:
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Our Constitution v. Case Law
"When you become a judge, you fiercely defend only one client: the law," Neil Gorsuch told the U.S. Senate.
That sounds great, until you stop to think. Since we are dealing with a lawyer, the circumstance would wisely call us to scrutinize what "is is," or, what Gorsuch may think the law is.
If the year was 1803, and we were talking to Chief Justice John Marshall, "the law" in Gorsuch's formulation would be the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Marshall made this abundantly clear in Marbury v. Madison: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and nothing opposed to it has legal validity. "[A] law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and [...] courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." (Marbury, 1803)
But today's legal class follows a different drummer: case law.
Case law means that Roe v. Wade, or any other unjust decree from our feigned rulers on the bench, supplants the clear words and purpose of the Constitution.
Thus, today's lawyer is trained to knee-jerk apply whatever the Supreme Court has previously said, no matter the injustice, immorality, or imposition forced upon the people.
Stare decisis, they call it. We call it lawmaking from the bench. But lawyerspeak conflates stare decisis (precedent) with the "rule of law."
So, we may be dealing with the typical lawyer's trick, the usual sophistry dressed in black. Beware of lawyers who save the fine print for last.
Worse than useless
I would call the Republicans useless, but that wouldn't be fair to uselessness.
In fact, they're worse than useless, because in practice they don't implement conservatism, they serve only to dissipate any national impulse toward what is principled, and conservative, and constitutional, and right.
They claim to be a "pro-life" party, and yet, even when they control the government, they don't lift a finger to keep their oaths to provide equal protection for posterity.
They claim to be "pro-family," but don't do a thing to restore and protect the essential institution of marriage, as defined by God and nature.
They claim to support our right to keep and bear arms, but don't make a peep when some federal judge infringes that right.
They claim to support border security, but when they're in power, the border remains wide open.
They campaign incessantly on "smaller government," and yet, somehow, even when when they "win," the size of government continues to grow exponentially.
They decry government debt, and then spend like drunken Democrats.
They run against socialized medicine, and then, when given the purse strings, they fully fund said unconstitutional usurpations for years on end. They truly do think they can do socialism better than the Democrats. Just what do you think "repeal and replace" means, anyhow?
It's an old joke, but it remains consistently true: In Washington, DC, the Democrats propose to tear down the Washington Monument, and the Republicans respond with a sensible plan to do it in three stages.
It's far past time for us to shake free of these two corrupt political parties, and to become, in fact, partisans only for principle. Throw them on the ash heap of history, where they belong.
Either we do that, and soon, or we will have completely squandered the precious inheritance of our children and grandchildren.
What does it profit?
Without integrity, "winning" matters not one whit. "What does it profit a man to win the whole world but lose his soul?" It's amazing how much humanistic philosophy the Lord was able to utterly destroy with that one simple question.
Patriotism is a fine thing, right up until the moment it trespasses beyond the bounds of moral right.
Abortion regulationism will never "overturn Roe," because it consistently imitates Roe, and molds itself to Roe, and to the false notion that the judiciary is all-powerful. Truly, Republicans think they can do Roe better the Democrats. Which I guess makes sense, since Roe was decided by a heavily Republican court in the first place.
When His patience ends
The Lord is amazingly patient. But He obviously doesn't wait forever. That thought should terrify those who continue to intentionally stop their ears to the truth. Because when His patience is finally and completely at an end, all hope is gone.
The call to "overturn Roe," and the demand that we clear the high bar of amending the Constitution in order to protect babies, are both forty-year-old misdirections. Roe is nothing but an immoral, unconstitutional, illicit court opinion. It is a legal nullity, since the supreme law of our land, the Constitution, already absolutely requires equal protection for every innocent person, in two separate Amendments.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Reality is reality
If you jump off an eighty foot cliff, the rocks at the bottom are not going to care what you claim to believe about gravity.
In the same way, if you say that a human child in the earliest moments and days of their physical existence are not human, not persons, they nonetheless remain human persons. And to intentionally kill them will still be murder.
And if you say that a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman, such a thing will remain a moral and a physical impossibility.
No matter how powerful you think you are, you cannot redefine or change natural reality.
If you try, you're no different, really, than the man in the insane asylum who claims to be Napoleon.
Truly, you need to be restrained, to keep you from jumping off eighty foot cliffs.
Marx's useful idiots
Marx and Engels set out to destroy marriage and the natural family as the means to get at, and destroy, private property, and to destroy the basis of free economics. Whether they know it or not, those in America who aid and abet abortionism and homosexualism are nothing but useful idiots for the Marxists. They are, consciously or unconsciously, destroyers of liberty.
Plumbing and wiring basics
Never hire someone to plumb or wire your house if they think male can couple with male, or female can couple with female.
Dial in to talk to