Is It Time To Ignore the Courts?

The United States Constitution is a social genius. The concepts of limited state enshrined within, with its system of checks and balances, its centralist architecture, and its Bill of Rights, is responsible for more freedom and prosperity, not just in America but abroad, than any other record other than the Bible.

Only two striking errors were present in the Constitution. The first was the reluctant acceptance of servitude, which was later addressed by the 13th Amendment ( and a civil war ). The next was a lack of restriction on the forces of the court. The legislative and executive branches have mechanisms to check each other, but there is nothing to check the judiciary with ( exceptionally, John Roberts ‘ full blown hissy fit last month ) ).

The court was always given the authority to proclaim legislation or professional action unconstitutional, so the Founding Fathers not implemented any checks on it. This “right” of judicial evaluation was established out of thin air by the Supreme Court itself in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. In this case, the jury merely declared on its own and without any other power to do so, that it had the authority to declare invalid legislation it deemed constitutional.

With the exception of Andrew Jackson and Joe Biden, both the legislative and executive branches have since moved to a ultimate decision from the Supreme Court. But they have done so out of history and law, not out of legal requirement. For the same reasons, the legislature is tolerated.

I don’t want to make the argument that the SCOTUS shouldn’t be able to exercise its right to criminal assessment. If the power for like a assessment were amended to the Constitution, it may justify a rational and sober contrast to our system of checks and balances. However, those checks and balances may occur in both directions for the three branches to absolutely coexist as equals. When a SCOTUS decision ( or any other lower court decision ) is in grave violation of the Constitution, we may even justify mechanisms to supersede criminal assessment.

Since such a mechanism would probably need a constitutional amendment, and since that’s not going to happen so long as half the country didn’t understand the basic definitions of what constitutes a biological woman and a biological man, the just check that the executive and legislative branches have is just to reject SCOTUS rulings, as well as the rulings of whatever crooked district judge confers upon himself the right to dictate policy evident beyond his purview.

Would it be unlawful to ignore the SCOTUS? No, not if Marbury v. Madison, the premise that underlies their right to review, was first and foremost unconstitutional. And since a basic reading of the Constitution grants SCOTUS, or any other court, nowhere near the sweeping powers it established arbitrarily for itself in Marbury V. Madison, the other two branches are not obliged to adhere to it.

Let me clarify that I am not invoking “insurrection” before I get put on some bureaucrat’s “extremist” watch list somewhere. The courts are carrying out the insurrection, not the Trump administration. If the Trump administration is governing in full compliance to the Constitution, and the courts are the ones granting themselves extra-constitutional powers, then it is the latter abusing the system. Madison v. Marbury was an obvious power grab, and it ought to be discarded as such. Its legitimacy is questioned because this usurpation of power is based on a “precedent” that dates back two centuries.

As President Jackson proved, SCOTUS has no ability to enforce its decisions. It only relies on its reputation, and it depends on the fact that Marbury v. Madison has been tolerated by the legislative and executive branches with the condition that SCOTUS maintains ideological neutrality and an implicit understanding of the fragile limits of its own power. When SCOTUS deviates from those circumstances, it forfeits its moral authority to have its decisions respected.

Presently, only Justice Thomas and Justice Alito seem to grasp this. The gender-confused Brown and the wise Latina Sotomayor are fundamentally political puppets. Roberts is a knave who searches for fame. The court’s reputation and authority currently rest on the decisions of Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. And lately, they’ve been performing horribly. Whether or not they realize it, they are actively stifling the reputation of the Supreme Court of Justice as a whole. And why? The unconstitutionality of their decisions be damned in order to protect the turf of peripheral district judges.

District judges have consistently usurped power at the start of this current administration, preventing Trump from being able to effectively govern. It was hoped that cooler minds would prevail once these cases made their way to SCOTUS. In a naive hope that the lower courts would rein themselves in, SCOTUS initially made very limited, narrow decisions.

It’s well known that SCOTUS prefers to have the least disruptive decisions possible. Yeah, I get it. I also understand that SCOTUS has a job, especially when it’s weighing in on issues like the funding situation for this school district or the illegal alien who betrays his wife. At the court’s feet are significant constitutional issues that require clarification and remediation. If SCOTUS justices lack the spine to deal with these issues, they should have the decency to step down to make room for those who do. If they object, they should mentally prepare themselves to file a lawsuit over every dollar of unused federal funds and every sob story from every illegal case because it is what their evasive inaction inevitably ends up doing because their narrow decisions only serve as a catalyst for district judges ‘ re-writing of subsequent decisions in order to support SCOTUS’s goal of knee-capping the Trump administration. &nbsp,

But rather than step up to that plate, SCOTUS has begun to delve into unconstitutional territory itself.

For instance, SCOTUS swiveled between the terms “facilitate” and “effectuate” and instructed the district court to give “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs” instead of acknowledging that district court judge Paula Xinis doesn’t dictate immigration policy and has no constitutional authority to order the Trump administration to order a foreign government to return a deported illegal.

Additionally, SCOTUS then recommended that the Trump administration” should be prepared to share what it can regarding the steps it has taken and the prospects of additional steps” in order to get the deported illegal back. This, I would assume, would include classified correspondence with foreign governments. And this is what SCOTUS believes a district judge should be able to control, micromanage, and independently assess whether these “further steps” were useful.

Imagine Trump requesting that the SCOTUS release records of the justices ‘ private correspondence during their closed-door hearings. Would they rightfully see this as an infringement upon their sovereignty?

Then there is their most recent ruling, which upholds a lower court’s interference with deportation proceedings more than a functioning, healthy judiciary. Here is Justice Alito’s dissent, as he better described it than I ever could:” Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”

At least the Soviets held their show trials in broad daylight.

Justices are not egotistical, transcendental sages who solely weigh the merits of each case on its constitutional merits. Judges are people with biases and personal opinions, and they also have the same gravitation toward the accumulation of power that anyone wearing their robes would experience. Their rulings can have less to do with constitutionality and more to do with racial prejudice ( Plessy v. Ferguson ), bench activism ( Roe v. Wade ), cowardice ( NFIB v. Sebelius ), or Justice Kennedy’s acid trip rhetorical gymnastics ( Obergefell v. Hodges ). &nbsp,

Should SCOTUS be forced to consider the possibility that other coequal branches of government legally disregard their decisions, they would at least be much more likely to attest that those decisions have indisputable constitutional support. As it stands, John Roberts can call the Obamacare penalty a “tax”, even though both the defendants and plaintiffs insisted it wasn’t, and even though the law itself defines it as a penalty, and nobody can do anything to correct his intentional obfuscation of written law.

What can Trump do to stop him from disregarding the law?

Such a move would first and foremost be a political landmine. The howls of “worse than Hitler” would be deafening, especially in contrast to the chirping crickets we heard when Biden ignored multiple SCOTUS rulings on student debt relief. No matter There are enough Republican senators and congressmen who lack the courage to support him. The remainder of his term would be a lame duck presidency.

However, he should start at the bottom if things get to the point where Trump has no choice but to start disobeying court rulings. If he disregarded a district court based solely on the ground that the district court had no constitutional authority to issue a decision, SCOTUS would be in charge of the case rather than the incidental technicalities of that particular case. By ignoring the lower courts on this principle, Trump could force SCOTUS to address, once and for all, the underlying constitutional issues they’ve tried for so long to avoid.

Regardless, our current course is unsustainable. We can’t be governed by activist judges who blatantly violate the Constitution and turn their own political convictions into unconstitutional law. What these judges are doing is far more “authoritarian” and “fascist” than anything Trump has ever come close to doing. The issue of Trump disregarding the courts is not one of “if,” but rather “when” if SCOTUS continues to ignore its obligations.

As we usher in the Golden Era of America, please continue to support the Constitution. Join VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60 % off your membership.

Source credit