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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
-- Article III, Section One, U.S. Constitution
Most people think federal judges receive a lifetime appointment to the bench. But the Constitution doesn't say that. It says that they hold their offices "during good Behaviour."
How many of you seriously think that the "Behaviour" of our judges has been "good"?
It's time to elect leaders to Congress who will act correctly, according to the obligations of their oaths, and begin to make the practice of the impeachment and removal of judges who behave badly THE RULE, rather than the exception.
If we don't rein in the courts, and if we continue to elect politicians who think we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of a free constitutional republic with checks and balances, we can't possibly save the country.
-- Tom Hoefling
To believe the judicial supremacist lie, that the courts rule over us, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional their opinions, you have to believe some really unbelievable, ridiculous, and even frightening things.
You have to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were wrong. They should have gone ahead and bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar's golden idol.
You have to believe that the Apostles were wrong. They should have shut up about the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they were told by civil authorities to do so.
You have to believe that the great Roman statesman Cicero was wrong, that there is no universally-applicable natural law which binds all men everywhere, throughout time.
You have to believe that Augustine was wrong when he said that, "an unjust law is no law at all."
You have to believe that Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that, "Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
You have to believe that William Blackstone was wrong when he said, "this natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
You have to believe that Samuel Adams was wrong when he said that, "[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
You have to believe that Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he said that, “The Sacred Rights of Mankind...are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power," and that "the judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
You have to believe that Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said that, "it is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
You have to believe that all of America's founders were wrong when they challenged and defeated the supreme civil authority of that old tyrant King George III.
You have to believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong when, in his first Inaugural Address, he said 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..."
You have to believe that Justice Taney should have been obeyed into perpetuity when he pronounced in the infamous Dred Scott opinion that black men were not human beings.
You have to believe that it was fine for a tinpot probate judge to pronounce a literal death sentence by dehydration and starvation on a helpless disabled woman, Terri Schindler Schiavo, and that it was acceptable to have the entire legal and political establishment of Florida and of the United States stand passively by as her tormentors tortured her to death by cruel and unusual means.
You have to believe that it's just fine that, by judicial decree, and through the passive connivance of a whole generation of American lawyers and politicians, more than fifty-five million defenseless babies have been brutally slaughtered, even though those same politicians swore a sacred oath to God to provide equal protection for the right to life of every person under their jurisdiction
You have to believe that nobody can do a thing when judges, in gross violation of the laws of nature and nature's God, and contrary to every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States, invent an imaginary "right" for a man to "marry" a man, or for a woman to "marry" a woman, even though such a perverted thing is physically, naturally, impossible.
You have to believe that our Constitution, and our republican form of government, with its necessary checks and balances, is a dead letter.
You have to believe that the sacred oath of office is nothing more than a formality or a photo op.
Please, quit believing nonsense. It's killing people, and destroying American self-government in liberty.
"Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.
In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.
Opinions of the Court were kept "loosey-goosey" for decades, and not preserved with certified integrity. Actual statute was held officially and carefully, in order to preserve its certainty as law.
In 1874, when Congress had decided to finally begin funding and overseeing the printing of Supreme Court opinions, while leaving their actual production to be handled privately, it moved its own code away from private printers to be solely handled by the U.S. government.
To this day, the actual production of Court opinions is done by contract to private entities. (You are apparently even invited, as a private citizen, to help out with any errors before the official printing!)
By contrast, actual federal code, the statute that is "on the books" because it went through the constitutional process of lawmaking, remains meticulously and faithfully produced by the U.S. government, start to finish.
Supreme Court opinions have always been treated as inferior to the United States code--because they are not the "law of the land.""
As part of an ongoing discussion we have been having with certain influential national conservative Christian leaders concerning the dangerous, destructive fallacy of judicial supremacy, my wife Siena penned the response below. It is so good, and so important, that I asked her permission to republish it to a wider audience. I hope and pray that every reader will give serious thought to what she is saying. -- Tom H.
As we take the time to sort out the implications of the ongoing state-by-state attack on marriage, with the courts the primary culprits, I believe that most of us are still in the learning phase when it comes to the powers of the executive and legislative branches to check the judiciary.
Given the importance of the matter, anything and everything should be constitutionally explored to preserve our good inheritance for future generations.
Our federalist system was designed to preserve that inheritance as long as possible. When a state takes a blow in a manner destructive of its constitutional institutions, the federal government is most especially obliged to act.
We cannot lose sight of Article IV in the U.S. Constitution. Section 4 requires that the states (and the people) retain the ability to make laws to govern themselves. We read:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government[.]"
This means, for instance, that an oligarchy of any sort is prohibited in the states. None but a state-by-state republic is permitted or guaranteed. And we know the word "guarantee" is a legal term, that carries with it the expectation of power and obligation to enforce the promise made.
The federal government is the body charged in Article IV with direct obligatory oversight, as an extra layer of protection to liberty, in order to secure the ability of the people in each state to make laws in their republic.
No branch of government anywhere, whether at the state or federal level, has the constitutional authority to impose oligarchical rule upon the body of the people. Nor does the Constitution tie our hands, or the hands of the chief executive and legislature, when the states are under attack. In its full context, Article IV, Section 4, explicitly names the executive and legislative branches as the chief instruments charged to provide ultimate protection to the states, to fulfill the purpose of federalism in the Constitution:
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
When it comes to judicially-imposed radicalism, the Founders did not leave us without recourse. The federal government, in particular the executive and legislative branches, is bound by contract to make good on the republican guarantee of Article IV.
We are designed to be a nation of law, not of caprice. And "we the people" fought a revolution against tyrannical caprice just for the opportunity to make law in harmony with the laws of nature. If we look more closely at the legal instrument our Founders created, we see that they did not leave us unprotected. All we have lacked in modern times is the election of individuals who are wise and courageous enough to uphold their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
P.S. On the question of federal involvement in marriage, you may take a look at the Utah Enabling Act of 1894, in which Congress required the prohibition of polygamy for statehood. The Act fulfilled the obligation of Article IV, Section 2, to put the new state of Utah on equal footing with the original states. Article IV, Section 2, requires: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Civil recognition of marriage between a man and wife is one of the primary privileges of a civil society. Inescapably, the federal government has the authority and duty to safeguard the exercise of that privilege for every state, in order to constitutionally "insure domestic tranquility."
For domestic tranquility's sake, the federal government maintains the power to oversee a singly exclusive form of marriage in all of the states, to thereby defend for posterity the natural obligations owed by parentage.
P.P.S. No matter its use, the word "domestic," Latin for "house," is inseparable from the idyllic concept of family life: father, mother, child. Even in the national sense, the word "domestic" alludes to family. As Webster's 1828 dictionary puts it, "Domestic . . . 4. Pertain[s] to a nation considered as a family." So it is that domestic violence hits us closest to home. I cannot help but think of Article IV, Section 4, in the context of abortion: a domestic violence in the closet possible place--the womb.
To believe that abortion is legal in America you have to believe several monstrous Big Lies:
1. That courts make our laws, even though the Constitution only grants lawmaking power to the legislative branch.
2. That our equal rights come from the arbitrary whims of men and can therefore be alienated, even though our nation's charter asserts just the opposite, that our rights come from our Creator and that they are therefore unalienable.
Any law, judicial opinion, or executive action that denies the equal right of any innocent person to live is lawless. It is null and void.
"This natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"Government...should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of natural rights of its members, and every government, which has not this in view, as its principle object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."
-- James Wilson
"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
-- Samuel Adams
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained."
-- George Washington, 1789
"I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments."
-- James Madison, 1789
Mitt Romney: Judicial supremacist, anti-republican, pro-choice, democrat.
Here's the proof.
*Excerpted from May 1, 2012 America's Summit, Restore the Republic call
Dial in to talk to