The Founding Fathers Warned Us About the Powers of the Supreme Court

[Locutus]

The Supreme Court acted as more than the highest court in the land this past week. They upheld an egregious Obamacare ruling, and then of course, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

Basically, the five justices in favor of allowing gays to wed have concluded that they know what is better for you than God himself.

Face palm. No, more than a face palm. More like, head punch.

The Founding Fathers of this great nation weren’t idiots, and they warned us about having a judicial body given lifetime appointments.

Check out what they said over 230 years ago…


From Louder with Crowder:

What would the Founders say about what the Supreme Court’s become? They’d call it overruling. They’d say Americans cannot long be free with such a centralized power dictating our laws. They’d call it tyranny. They’d call SCOTUS a despotic branch of government. As a matter of fact… they did.

Unshackled by the burdens of modern political correctness, we now punt to some of the greatest men and minds in our nation’s history, providing their most relevant quotes as pertaining to the overreach we now see from the Supreme Court:
​

James Madison

“The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
​

John Adams

“A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.”
​

Thomas Jefferson

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”
​

Alexander Hamilton

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
​

Of course, the liberal reaction is: What do a bunch of dead old white men know? Get them off my money!


THIS was the Founding Fathers Warning About the Supreme Court...Powerful

 

[personal touch]

God is smiling,
the ruling was a good day for all Americans.
congratulations USA for bringing yourselves into the modern world !

 

[Sons of Liberty]

If the Founding Fathers were so concerned about the Supreme Court why did they "found" it to begin with?

 

[pgs]

God is smiling,
the ruling was a good day for all Americans.
congratulations USA for bringing yourselves into the modern world !

So you are fine with 9 appointed old white people ruling America .
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need these pesky elections . These enlightened minds can rule .

 

[SLM]

Sigh. Just more hand wringing from those who don't like the outcome.

Between the pathetic poor losers and the incredibly annoying lousy winners, I'll be glad when this all blows over. In other words, when both ends of the spectrum take their heads out of their own backsides long enough to realize that the sun still comes up in the morning.

Good grief, don't these people have a life? Jobs? Family?

 

[Walter]

So you are fine with 9 appointed old white people ruling America .
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need these pesky elections . These enlightened minds can rule .

The most conservative judge is black.

 

[pgs]

Sigh. Just more hand wringing from those who don't like the outcome.

Between the pathetic poor losers and the incredibly annoying lousy winners, I'll be glad when this all blows over. In other words, when both ends of the spectrum take their heads out of their own backsides long enough to realize that the sun still comes up in the morning.

Good grief, don't these people have a life? Jobs? Family?

I could care less about either ruling , I do care that the supreme court in both the U.S. and Canada are doing more than interpreting
laws and actually doing congress and parliament's job by setting policy .

 

[Sons of Liberty]

I could care less about either ruling , I do care that the supreme court in both the U.S. and Canada are doing more than interpreting laws and actually doing congress and parliament's job by setting policy .

Then the problem lies with the imbeciles we elect, not with the Supreme Court, that's why they are there, checks and balances.

 

[Kreskin]

Who else should have the most power?

 

[EagleSmack]

It looks like the SJC has the most power at this point.

Now that they are in the legislating business.

 

[Kreskin]

What did they legislate?

 

[EagleSmack]

What did they legislate?

Basically they declared gay marriage is now legal in all states... not that that is a bad thing... but they did it. That now overturns every law that was passed saying otherwise... in a nut shell.

Except on Native American Reservations that is.

...then again they've been doing this for awhile. I still think they are the most powerful branch.

 

[SLM]

Basically they declared gay marriage is now legal in all states... not that that is a bad thing... but they did it. That now overturns every law that was passed saying otherwise... in a nut shell.

Except on Native American Reservations that is.

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether arguments before them have constitutional merit, right? So if they struck down a law prohibiting SSM, then they are saying the laws of which you speak are in violation of the principles of the constitution, which is the highest law of the land. At state or federal level.

So isn't that just really saying that the states that have made laws banning SSM have made bad laws? Under the principles of the constitution that is. That isn't the Court making law, that's the court doing it's job.

 

[DaSleeper]

Is the law bad????? a lot of people don't think so.....
If the supreme court can legally change any law they think is bad or they really don't like why bother electing representatives to run the country.....?
Save a whole bunch of money and just appoint a dozen or so old men and women to do it Non?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether arguments before them have constitutional merit, right? So if they struck down a law prohibiting SSM, then they are saying the laws of which you speak are in violation of the principles of the constitution, which is the highest law of the land. At state or federal level.

So isn't that just really saying that the states that have made laws banning SSM have made bad laws? Under the principles of the constitution that is. That isn't the Court making law, that's the court doing it's job.

That's correct. "Legislating from the bench" means "making a decision I don't like."

 

[EagleSmack]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong here but the job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether arguments before them have constitutional merit, right? So if they struck down a law prohibiting SSM, then they are saying the laws of which you speak are in violation of the principles of the constitution, which is the highest law of the land. At state or federal level.

So isn't that just really saying that the states that have made laws banning SSM have made bad laws? Under the principles of the constitution that is. That isn't the Court making law, that's the court doing it's job.

The problem I have is that ideology now runs the courts and not the constitution. All they... and many judges... say is "that's against the constitution".

And WALLAH! It is against the constitution!

I never liked the idea of a law being passed by the people in an election being tossed out by one person or a handful of people with a simple ruling from the bench.

That's correct. "Legislating from the bench" means "making a decision I don't like."

How about making a decision that really isn't "against" the constitution... they just would rather it be so.

FAIL

 

[gerryh]

The problem I have is that ideology now runs the courts and not the constitution. All they... and many judges... say is "that's against the constitution".

And WALLAH! It is against the constitution!

I never liked the idea of a law being passed by the people in an election being tossed out by one person or a handful of people with a simple ruling from the bench.

and if they didn't, or couldn't, you could very well end up with "tyranny of the majority".




Would you like slavery made legal again because "the majority want it"?

 

[DaSleeper]

I think slavery was abolished by congress....not the supreme court!

 

[SLM]

Is the law bad????? a lot of people don't think so.....
If the supreme court can legally change any law they think is bad or they really don't like why bother electing representatives to run the country.....?
Save a whole bunch of money and just appoint a dozen or so old men and women to do it Non?

A bad law is one that doesn't withstand the constitutional test. Nothing more or nothing less. Any court can legally change any law, that's the whole point of courts. But at least they use a standard to measure with. Not the flavour of the day that you get with politics.

The problem I have is that ideology now runs the courts and not the constitution. All they... and many judges... say is "that's against the constitution".

And WALLAH! It is against the constitution!

Somehow I think their judicial statements are going to be more wordy than that. They are lawyers after all.

I never liked the idea of a law being passed by the people in an election being tossed out by one person or a handful of people with a simple ruling from the bench.

Just because you have a group of like minded individuals doesn't mean the decisions they make are equitable, fair minded or not harmful.A yardstick is needed, one that is not emotionally biased or prejudicial.

There is a reason why this

is the symbol of justice.

How about making a decision that really isn't "against" the constitution... they just would rather it be so.

I'm not so naive as to believe there is no influence on the courts, it is not a perfect system but it is as perfect as humanly possible. Most people believe, they truly believe, that what they are most passionate about is fair, rational and just. But there's always another opinion, another side, equally as passionate that disagrees. How does anyone decide which side is "right"? By applying the law. The law is cold, rational, logical. It is imbued with enough reasonableness and information of the human condition to make it palatable. And people that truly have no horse in the race can usually see that it is, indeed, fair and equitable. Whether they like it or not.

 

[tay]

But we do wonder Where was all this “five unelected judges” chatter when they handed down Citizens United?