Good for all of you who work to remind all of us about past and present dangerous usurpations of power by U.S. Supreme Court justices. Your work is crucial to helping us protect our rights and freedoms from the depredations of current SCOTUS justices. They are far beyond being merely "activist." They are deeply and dangerously anti-constitutionalist. They actively deceive Americans to rob and defraud us of our rights and the protections of the Constitution. The majority did it in Dobbs. They all did it in Trump v. Anderson. Some are doing it again in Trump v. United States.
SCOTUS justices who were more honest and more faithful public servants (in their famous and celebrated decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)) reminded us repeatedly of the words of James Madison. Madison ranks with Lincoln as among the best public servants we've ever had. He was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and he was hailed as the Father of the Constitution for starting and shepherding the process of creating the Constitution. That decision (New York Times) is under dangerous and deceitful attack by some of these SCOTUS justices who want to silence critics (esp. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch). See https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/who-cares-about-the-history-of-the?r=30ufvh.
SCOTUS in 1964 reminded us that Madison in 1794 (as a congressman reminding Congress of the true meaning of our Constitution) emphasized that "the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." More importantly, SCOTUS reminded us that Madison in 1800 emphasized the most basic and crucial truth of our Constitution: "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The First Amendment merely secures and reminds us of how we can directly exercise our sovereignty.
Our entire Constitution (not merely the First Amendment) secures to us all "the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon." It does so precisely because the right to think and speak for ourselves about our own government "has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every" American "right." If we don't exercise our right to self-government and act to rein in our purported public servants, then the Bill of Rights really will be as Madison warned, a mere "parchment barrier" against very real power-hungry despots.
All federal judges have sworn to "faithfully" "support and defend [our] Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." See 5 U.S.C. 3331. That is the whole reason they hold their positions and collect their pay. They must defend our Constitution, not Trump. SCOTUS justices in 1964 (who did as they swore to do) reminded us in New York Times us that the primary purpose of the First Amendment was to secure "the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official’s duty to administer." They reminded us that all public officials (including SCOTUS justices and POTUS, too) are "public servants" who cannot logically or lawfully enjoy "an unjustified preference over the public they serve." That applies to our freedom to think and speak for ourselves, and it applies to holding Trump to the criminal law that he did (and SCOTUS does) hold us.
My head is already exploding and now the historical account of the Supreme Court’s part in overhauling our democracy helps me to understand why. Perhaps it’s time to expand the court to install a more fair and balanced approach to jurisprudence.
It’s like the supreme court is a shadow government (I didn’t capitalize it on purpose). I’m imagining that the average person cannot keep track of what they are doing, because they are busy changing diapers, working long hours, getting to their kid’s basketball ball game, and so on, to really keep track of this. So they hear snippets and sound bites and think it is the truth. Allowing poverty in the richest country on Earth helps create a class of subservience. It’s so maddening
It’s the First Amendment “Articles of Truth” accounting such as this that should run in all Media Main Stream outlets. We are all responsible to participate in democracy. The principles of American Civics 101 is kitchen table talk if you care about the freedom and liberties of such things. When your children are curious and ask questions this “Article of Truth” is an invaluable resource for discussion.
Such a great telling, this part 1 of 3. I will look forward to the upcoming parts 2 & 3. As I read through this well crafted piece, I asked myself, who will be reading this three part series on the Court? Then I wandered into what is going to be done about it? Meaning what must happen to reverse the awful decisions that never should have happened, while removing these traitors from the court. The answer to my first question is an unknown, to the second, all one need do is look back at the actions taken in the face of such things throughout our history to see that nothing will. Why? One might ask would I say that. Because I have observed that the will and resolve to take the necessary action is not there.
Great article. I served as a US Magistrate Judge and I am horrified by the current Court’s lack of ethics and respect for precedent.
Good for all of you who work to remind all of us about past and present dangerous usurpations of power by U.S. Supreme Court justices. Your work is crucial to helping us protect our rights and freedoms from the depredations of current SCOTUS justices. They are far beyond being merely "activist." They are deeply and dangerously anti-constitutionalist. They actively deceive Americans to rob and defraud us of our rights and the protections of the Constitution. The majority did it in Dobbs. They all did it in Trump v. Anderson. Some are doing it again in Trump v. United States.
SCOTUS justices who were more honest and more faithful public servants (in their famous and celebrated decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)) reminded us repeatedly of the words of James Madison. Madison ranks with Lincoln as among the best public servants we've ever had. He was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, and he was hailed as the Father of the Constitution for starting and shepherding the process of creating the Constitution. That decision (New York Times) is under dangerous and deceitful attack by some of these SCOTUS justices who want to silence critics (esp. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch). See https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/who-cares-about-the-history-of-the?r=30ufvh.
SCOTUS in 1964 reminded us that Madison in 1794 (as a congressman reminding Congress of the true meaning of our Constitution) emphasized that "the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people." More importantly, SCOTUS reminded us that Madison in 1800 emphasized the most basic and crucial truth of our Constitution: "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The First Amendment merely secures and reminds us of how we can directly exercise our sovereignty.
Our entire Constitution (not merely the First Amendment) secures to us all "the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon." It does so precisely because the right to think and speak for ourselves about our own government "has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every" American "right." If we don't exercise our right to self-government and act to rein in our purported public servants, then the Bill of Rights really will be as Madison warned, a mere "parchment barrier" against very real power-hungry despots.
All federal judges have sworn to "faithfully" "support and defend [our] Constitution" against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." See 5 U.S.C. 3331. That is the whole reason they hold their positions and collect their pay. They must defend our Constitution, not Trump. SCOTUS justices in 1964 (who did as they swore to do) reminded us in New York Times us that the primary purpose of the First Amendment was to secure "the privilege for the citizen-critic of government. It is as much his duty to criticize as it is the official’s duty to administer." They reminded us that all public officials (including SCOTUS justices and POTUS, too) are "public servants" who cannot logically or lawfully enjoy "an unjustified preference over the public they serve." That applies to our freedom to think and speak for ourselves, and it applies to holding Trump to the criminal law that he did (and SCOTUS does) hold us.
My head is already exploding and now the historical account of the Supreme Court’s part in overhauling our democracy helps me to understand why. Perhaps it’s time to expand the court to install a more fair and balanced approach to jurisprudence.
I'm surprised you omitted Wm Rehnquist's role as the leader of Operation Eagle Eye in Phx, AZ.
He was a segregationist. and harrassed minority voters at the polls.
https://www.democracynow.org/2000/12/12/as_supreme_court_decides_presidency_chief
It’s like the supreme court is a shadow government (I didn’t capitalize it on purpose). I’m imagining that the average person cannot keep track of what they are doing, because they are busy changing diapers, working long hours, getting to their kid’s basketball ball game, and so on, to really keep track of this. So they hear snippets and sound bites and think it is the truth. Allowing poverty in the richest country on Earth helps create a class of subservience. It’s so maddening
Holy shit this is all so infuriating.
Thank so much for this great summary.
It’s the First Amendment “Articles of Truth” accounting such as this that should run in all Media Main Stream outlets. We are all responsible to participate in democracy. The principles of American Civics 101 is kitchen table talk if you care about the freedom and liberties of such things. When your children are curious and ask questions this “Article of Truth” is an invaluable resource for discussion.
Such a great telling, this part 1 of 3. I will look forward to the upcoming parts 2 & 3. As I read through this well crafted piece, I asked myself, who will be reading this three part series on the Court? Then I wandered into what is going to be done about it? Meaning what must happen to reverse the awful decisions that never should have happened, while removing these traitors from the court. The answer to my first question is an unknown, to the second, all one need do is look back at the actions taken in the face of such things throughout our history to see that nothing will. Why? One might ask would I say that. Because I have observed that the will and resolve to take the necessary action is not there.