Supreme Court or Supreme Insult?
Posted in the Chicago Forum
#1 May 14, 2014
Supreme Court or Supreme Insult?
By David Hoffman
During my years serving as Legal Editor for the English Edition of Pravda.Ru, I have had many occasions to write about the inanity, hypocrisy, mendacity, and corruption displayed by the current United States Supreme Court, where a "conservative" majority dominated by five unethical, politicized, and overtly biased "justices"-Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John Roberts-unabashedly and unconscionably impose their personal, political, economic, racial, and religious agendas upon millions of Americans through the force of law, oftentimes overturning decades of legal precedent in the process.
Yet, not surprisingly, one hears little denunciation in conservative political circles about this new brand of judicial activism, even though it was conservatives who rabidly denounced the Warren Court for its alleged judicial activism during the 1950s and 60s-an activism that included the expansion of civil rights and liberties for African-Americans and other racial minorities. In fact, conservatives deceptively heralded the replacement of Chief Justice Earl Warren with Warren Burger as a new dawn of "judicial restraint."
In reality, this new dawn should have served as a harbinger to Americans regarding the increasingly farcical nature of their highest court, because conservatives were not celebrating the fact that a learned, unbiased jurist was now Chief Justice, but instead applauding the rudimentary steps toward the creation of a Supreme Court comprised of racist, right-wing "justices" who would place their personal beliefs and agendas above existing law, and overturn or dilute many of the Warren Court's decisions.
Today they have finally gotten their wish.
However, it was not intended to be this way. When America's founders were constructing the nation's "check-and-balance" system, they came to realize that two of the three federal government branches-the legislative and executive-were dependent upon the will of the majority; therefore, they decided that judges who comprised the judicial branch would be appointed instead of elected. It was believed that by freeing these judges from the necessity to appease and appeal to the whims of the voters they would be in a better position to protect and defend the rights of America's racial, religious, and political minorities.
But what America is witnessing today is the sobering reality that the only minority the Roberts court is interested in protecting is the minority with the majority of the money.
Add your comments below
|Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08)||5 min||Professor Chaos||61,742|
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||12 min||the deplorable Jo...||1,441,472|
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||21 min||Rogue Scholar 05||227,547|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||27 min||Sublime1||103,879|
|Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter worr... (Aug '09)||2 hr||Myriad||53|
|All for the "Emperor with no clothes".||4 hr||HRC is BHO withPenis||5|
|What really happened to these Clinton aquaintan...||4 hr||INVEST in Body Bags||21|
|After hillary choked, what really happened with...||5 hr||NarcissistPSYCHO||13|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC