In Reply to Justice Roberts on the Existence of Socialist Obama Judges.

Laurie Thomas Vass, CEO of the Citizens Liberty Party

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts said.

The judicial history of America suggests otherwise, Justice Roberts, and your comment obscures the irreconcilable differences in the country that is leading to a national civil disunion.

The threat to individual liberty today arises from a dedicated ideological, left-wing political movement that seeks to undermine the legitimate constitutional government of President Trump, in order to implement a totalitarian socialist, centralized regime.

The socialists are engaged in a vicious, violent campaign of hate against President Trump.

The Democrats have no sense of allegiance to the rule of law.

Their allegiance is to the religion of socialism, and their allegiance is exactly the same type of religious totalitarian fervor that Muslim terrorists have to their Quran.

The Democrat socialist intent is to replace individual liberty, itself, in order to substitute left-wing totalitarian collectivism.

The cultural value that held this country into a common national mission was the voluntary allegiance to obey the rule of law.

Your socialist judges do not have an allegiance to the rule of law.

The genesis of Madison’s flaw is the elevation of the Federal Court over all other branches of government, now called chambers by the newly elected Democrat socialist representative.

Madison’s flaw is that the Supreme Court, as a result of Marbury, is the ultimate power of the federal government over the other branches of government. The judicial decisions operate directly upon citizens.

Madison’s Constitution creates a government whose judiciary is the ultimate judge of whose sovereign interests are served by the constitutional rules of procedure.

Under Madison, Federal judges serve for life and from the get-go, the Federal judges served the interests of whatever political party that appointed them.

Madison’s constitution means one thing about the purpose of government to left-wing socialist judges, and an entirely different thing to conservative judges.

Both sides can claim legitimacy for their interpretation because Madison left out the part in the Declaration, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

When Madison implemented the British judicial system, he failed, deliberately, toembed Jefferson’s moral value about the consent of the governed into his Constitution of 1787.

When Thomas Paine commented on Madison’s constitution, he said, “it is an ill-advised attempt to replicate the British form of mixed constitution…their basis for justice becomes the balancing of particular class interests….they make it difficult for citizens to participate…it deprives citizens of private manners and public principles, and is driven by power and not consent, by coercive force and not the choices of citizens.”

As noted by Brutus, a natural rights proponent during the ratification debates, “The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges  independent,  by granting  them  their  offices  during  good  behaviour,  without  following  the  constitution  of  England,  in  instituting  a  tribunal  in  which  their  errors  may  be  corrected;  and  without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.”

Brutus continued, “the judiciary under this system will have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.The judges under this constitution will controul the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment…  In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”

For decades, after the decision in Marbury, the Federal judges based their rulings about national sovereignty on their traditional interpretation of Madison’s social class interests.

Either side could possibly win at the Supreme Court, depending on whether there was a majority of Democrats or Republicans.

For example, when the Federalists were a majority, they issued the Dred Scott decision.

As intended by Madison, the majority on the Supreme Court were protecting the property rights of minority slaveholders against the tyranny of a moralistic majority who would deprive the Plantation elite of their property rights.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the progeny of the Federalist judges on the Supreme Court manufactured legally sanctioned racial segregation.

Plessy was the case that established “separate but equal” as the Supreme law of the land. The constitutional goal of racial apartheid was to embody and reinforce an ideology of white supremacy.

Conversely, in the majority hands of progressive Democrats, the Supreme Court manufactured rights on behalf of the common citizens.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Democrat majority that the right to abortion was to be found in the “penumbras” and “emanations” of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Douglas wrote, “Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?”

By a vote of 7–2, the Democrat majority of the Supreme Court invalidated Connecticut’s abortion law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy.”

There is no text in the Constitution about “marital privacy.”

One of the decisions flowing from Griswold’s marital privacy, was Justice Harry Blackmun’s decision, 8 years later, in Roe.

In Roe, the U. S. Supreme Court overrode the sovereignty of the Texas Court, to forbid abortion.

In a subsequent majority decision on abortion, Blackmun expressed his personal opinion.

“Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman’s decision – with the guidance of her physician and within the limits specified in Roe – whether to end her pregnancy. A woman’s right to make that choice freely is fundamental.”

Roe is not based in the text of Madison’s constitution. From a Democrat’s political perspective, Blackmun’s decision in Roe is perfectly logical and defensible because it promotes the concept of social justice.

The fact that the Court can fluctuate between protecting property rights when Republicans hold the majority, or promoting social justice, when Democrats are the majority, means that there is no possibility of strict construction of the text.

At the time the Court issues an opinion, the law becomes whatever the majority say it is.

All other agencies and branches of government (chambers), must obey the Supreme Law of the land. The other branches of government have no recourse against the Court for misapplication of the text.

Before Obama, the Court generally stuck to interpreting the class interests of Madison’s two British social classes, the natural aristocracy and common citizens.

After Obama converted the Democrat Party from the protection of common citizens to the promotion of global socialism, the entire justification for Madison’s two class system of checks and balances was rendered meaningless.

Rather than protecting the rights of common citizens, the Democrat Federal judges, at every level, base their decisions on the promotion of social justice, not on the text of the Constitution.

In other words, in changing the mission of the Democrat Party, Obama relocated national sovereignty from Madison’s British social class system to global government sovereignty.

Obama added the moral principle that America is an evil empire because Madison’s Constitution sanctioned slavery.

According to Obama, and the Democrat Party socialists, America can never overcome its original sin of slavery.

The goal for Obama, just like Marx, is the overthrow of the American capitalist economy, which is based upon private property, to a centralized economy, based upon public ownership of the means of production.

A Marxist society, like Cuba or Venezuela, does not rely on the voluntary allegiance to the rule of law, it relies on brutal police state repression and violence to compel citizen obedience.

Consequently, the first step in overthrowing the economic system, for Obama, is gaining control of the American legal system that protects private property.

There is nothing in Madison’s judicial framework, or the power of Marshall’s judicial review, that prohibits a socialist, like Obama, from deploying the centralized machinery of government to implement his new locus of national sovereignty.

Obama’s two selections of socialist judges on the Supreme Court, continue the Democrat Party’s precedent of substituting racial hatred for the equal application of the law.

Justice Sotomayor wrote, in the Michigan Affirmative Action case:

“The effect of this ruling is that a white graduate of a public Michigan university who whishes to pass his historical privilege on to his children may freely lobby the board of that university in favor of an expanded legacy admissions policy, whereas a black Michagander who was denied the opportunity to attend that very university cannot lobby the board in favor of a policy that might give his children a chance that he never had and that they might never have absent that policy.”

There is nothing in the text of Madison’s Constitution about historical white privilege.

But, Sotomayor’s rulings, based upon her critical legal interpretation of America’s racist past, are legitimate opinions, under Marshall’s judicial review.

Sotomayor can make up the constitution as she goes along because the Constitution is whatever she says it is.

You, also, Justice Roberts, can make the law up, as you go along, just as you did in the Obama Care case.

All the socialist Democrats lack for implementing their socially constructed reality of centralized economic planning is the appointment of a socialist majority on the Supreme Court.

The judge in the 9th Circuit who issued the Temporary Restraining Order against Trump, based his decision on his Marxist ideology that Trump is being unfair to the illegal migrants.

For left-wing socialist judges, justice as fairness in the pursuit of social justice, is more important than the pursuit of individual liberty or the “equal application of the law.”

Justice, as fairness, is arbitrary and capricious because the judicial decisions are based upon a social construction of a reality that is rooted in a hatred of America as a racist nation.

Part of your dumb-ass statement has a kernel of truth. There are not Obama judges or Bush judges. The real distinction is between ideologically-committed socialists and traditional conservative judges.

Since 2016, the socialist political strategy has been based entirely on the politics of hate. During the mid-term elections of 2018, the socialists did not adopt a traditional party platform that championed the financial interests of common citizens.

Rather, their entire strategy was to vilify their enemies. Just as they vilified Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, during which, you were strangely silent.

The left’s target is the concept of individual liberty, and in order to destroy liberty, they must first destroy voluntary allegiance to the rule of law.

The ideological split between socialists and natural rights conservatives is irreconcilable. There are no shared cultural values that bind the citizens of this nation together.

One, or the other, legal philosophy, must be vanquished from the field of battle.

And, your idiotic statement clearly demonstrates what side of this battle you are on.

 

About Laurie Thomas Vass. Vass is a constitutional economist, based in North Carolina. She is the author of A Civil Dissolution, and the upcoming book, After the Collapse: The Democratic Republic of America.

All of her books are available for purchase at GabbyPress.

Her scholarly articles are available, for free, at the Social Science Research Network.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.