This HERETIC “court” has violated basic principles of courts as neutral, fact and precedent respecting bodies. It is DOCUMENTED this “court” has ignored inconvenient facts. How many times have YOU seen this: ‘the expected ruling..” WHY is that phrasing used? Examine the “court” record of “winners” and “losers” for neutrality. Research the ideological, political, social, and economic power behind this “court.”
1] Jack Rakove: “Original Meanings”: Leonard Levy: the Supreme Court’s use of originalist evidence is best described as a mix of “law office history” and justificatory rhetoric which offers little reason to think this method..can provide faithful and accurate..original constitutional understandings. Rakove: originalism “..rests on the..legal fiction that most clauses of the Constitution possessed a clear meaning at their inception.”
*** “Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.” [Adolf Hitler]
2] Leonard Levy” “Original Intent and the Framer’s Constitution”
– “The centuries of Court history should bring us to understand what really is a notorious fact: the Court has flunked history..Justices stand censored for abusing historical evidence in a way that reflects adversely on their intellectual record as well as on their historical competence..The Court artificially selects historical facts from one side only, ignoring contrary data, in order..to give the appearance of respectability..The text is what counts, but the notion that it must be construed according to original intent is itself a prejudice. It is a notion that lacks original intent..no evidence, not a shred, exists to show..the Framers meant, wanted, or expected future generations to construe the Constitution as they, the Framers, had.” [“prejudice”; “not a shred” of evidence exists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
*** “I don’t want to know what the law is. I want to know who the judge is.” [Roy Cohn] ***** REMEMBER this! MEMORIZE it. THIS is the post-1969 American Far-Right legal strategy: “knowing who the judge is”
3]. Amanda Hollis-Brusky: “Ideas With Consequences The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution”
– “the Federalist Society network was most influential in cases where the Supreme Court took a big step away from their established constitutional framework..members of the Federalist Society functioned as active conduits for idea transmission. The intellectual capital they supplied through legal briefs and written scholarship helped the Supreme Court majority justify these revolutionary constitutional decisions..the Federalist Society network helped foster and facilitate a climate conducive to constitutional change..the Federalist Society’s role as a powerful and vocal ‘judicial audience’ [Baum 2006]..has been important in keeping judges and Justices aligned with the network’s views and shared beliefs once on the bench.”
*** “Truth is the most important thing. That is why we should ration it.” [Lenin]
4] a] note: The Federalist Society was primarily funded in early days by the Olin Foundation. John Olin was against “socialism,” government regulations, labor unions, and the New Deal. Olin wanted to root “liberalism” out of major law schools; was the “dominant decision-maker” in the “law and economics” field, which ran various institutes for federal judges. 40% of federal judges attended one of Henry Manne’s sessions.
4]b] Michael Avery, Danielle McLaughlin: “The Federalist Society”
– The “Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment” also runs “training programs” for judges, justices, professors, and others. “FREE’s reach into the judiciary is staggering.” Since 1992, a quarter of the chief judges in federal courts have attended one of their programs – which involve “free market solutions” and opposition to the “takings clause.” Questions are raised when various corporations bring cases into the courts of these same judges, who were “trained” at sessions they sponsored.
!!!!!!!!!!! Time Out! Why do judges “need” to attend “training sessions”. sponsored by private sector actors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*** “There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” [Justice Black]
5] “justice” Alito in “Dobbs”: “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”
!!!!!!!! the historical IGNORANCE and FALSEHOOD of this is mind boggling – it is 100%. FALSE.
*** The truth: World Book Encyclopedia: “Before the 1800s, there were few religious or legal obstacles to abortion prior to quickening..In the United States, abortion before quickening was not an offense under common law before the mid-1800s..”
***The Truth, Wikipedia: “Abortion has existed in North America since the European colonization..was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial..Connecticut was the first state to regulate abortion in 1821..in 1859, abortion was not a crime in 21 of 33 states…Roe returned abortion to its liberalized pre-1820 status.”
*** “every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.” [Ralph Waldo Emerson]
6] Andrew Seidel: “American Crusade”
– “unshackle your mind from..belief..the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter of truth and justice. The Crusade depends upon people believing this myth. McConnell, Trump, and Leo cheated, and stole and packed the courts to put their collaborators in place not because they would administer justice evenhandedly, but because they wouldn’t…
“The idea..a single exemption to any law necessitates every religious exemption to that same law has been roundly rejected in the legal academy as: “unprincipled and bizarre,” “an untenable proposition” that would make every religious objector “a law unto himself,” “an almost insurmountable barrier to regulation,” and “intellectually incoherent”..
“If the facts don’t fit the Crusade, the Court will alter reality, like the Town of Greece, prayers, gay wedding cake, and Missouri ministry cases..These justices overriding principle won’t be reality or the law or the Constitution..but simply this: Christians win.” [“bizarre,’ “untenable,” “intellectually incoherent” – THIS on the “supreme court” ???????????]
*** “As a member of this Court, I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard.” [Justice Frankfurter]
7] “Supreme Court upheaval is swift, sweeping”; Robert Barnes; Washington Post Weekly, 7/10/22
– Justice Kagan accused the majority of inventing standards to achieve its goals in the EPA case: “The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it..When that method would frustrate broader goals, special cannons like the “major questions” doctrine magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.”
***”Arbitrary power and the rule of the Constitution cannot both exist. They are antagonistic and incompatible forces; one or the other must of necessity perish whenever they are brought in conflict.” [Justice Sutherland]
8]. Erwin Chemerinsky: “The Case Against the Supreme Court”
– Scalia, “stressed the efficiency of benefits of arbitration over court litigation and said that it was important to protect defendants, such as corporations, from the “in terrorem” effects of class action, which pressure them into settlements. The Court’s desire to protect business and its hostility to class actions suits could not have been more clearly stated..The Court said..the Federal Arbitration Act requires..Nowhere does the Federal Arbitration Act say or imply this [!!!!!! Scalia is defending something that DOES NOT EXIST – and – making it into new law!!!!!!!!].. nothing in the text or history of the Federal Arbitration Act implies..this..in a subsequent case, in 2013, the Court said..an arbitration clause is to be enforced even when the effect surely will immunize a defendant’s wrongful conduct from any remedy.”
– “Al-Kidd should have been a simple case.. Never before had the Supreme Court said..the test is whether “every reasonable official” would have known..Never before had the Supreme Court said..a plaintiff could recover for a constitutional violation only if existing law placed the question “beyond debate”.”
– “Each time [the Voting Rights Act of 1965] was set to expire, Congress extended it. Congress documented continued discrimination [650 attempts between 1982 and 2006]..The Senate voted 98-0 to extend the law for another 25 years..only 3 “no” votes in the House..President George W. Bush signed the extension into law. In Shelby County..the Court..held Section 4[b].. was unconstitutional..for the first time since the nineteenth century..the Court declared unconstitutional a federal civil rights statute..[using] “equal sovereignty”.. Nowhere does the Constitution say this.”
***re-read the examples – the HERETIC Roberts “court” is MAKING. STUFF. UP!!!! and, making it law
*** “Anybody who doesn’t take the truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large one either.” [Albert Einstein}
9]. Linda Greenhouse: “Justice on the Brink”
– “The phrase “ministerial exception” appears nowhere in federal law. It was an invention of lower court judges..In 2012, the Supreme Court endorsed this reasoning.”
– In “Hosanna-Tabor”, Justice Sotomayor dissent: “The court had traded legal analysis for a rubber stamp,” in allowing religious schools “to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly divorced from religious beliefs.” [100,00 secular teachers were stripped of statutory protection]
– “..to name religion would have required Roberts to acknowledge that the profound doctrinal shift the court was making, from equal treatment to special treatment..In dissent..Kagan..Breyer and Sotomayor had no trouble naming what had just occurred: “The Court orders California to weaken its restrictions on public gatherings by making a special exception for worship services. The majority does so even though the State’s policies treat worship just as favorably as secular activities [including political assemblies] that, according to medical evidence, pose the same risk of COVID transmission..That mandate defies our case law, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”
[more MAKING. STUFF. UP ]
*** “No man is above the law and no man is below it..” [Theodore Roosevelt]
The above is a very. SMALL. sample of how the HERETIC Roberts “court” has been. MAKING. STUFF UP in order to carry out the Crusade. ALL this before the “winning” record of big business of about 75%; and the even more impressive “winning” record of right-wing religion of about 90% – both. TOTALLY. OUT. OF. PROPORTION of ALL other post-1945 Supreme Courts.
Would YOU, as a “reasonable person,” say the Roberts “court” is a neutral body, has no agenda, respects known facts and long-standing precedents, and treats all who come before it evenhandedly???????????
With Justice For All 