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???????????

VIII – this heretic “court” has repeatedly violated basic American principles.

*** James Madison, Federalist #71: “..it is the just observation that the people commonly intend the public good.”
Madison, Federalist #45: “..the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to
be pursued; that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment
of this object.”

1]. James M. Burns and Stewart Burns: “A People’s Charter”: “The story of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is not about liberty. It is about unity, stability, security – about order..delegates were resolved to build a stouter, more durable union.” “The consensus that has developed among Americans with regard to the fundamental rights that ought to be protected by any Bill of Rights worthy of the name…The roots of that consensus lay in the English heritage..Magna Carta.. doctrines of natural rights..”

*** “That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis, on which the whole American fabric has been erected.”
[John Marshall, “Marbury”]

2] Leonard Levy: “Origins of the Bill of Rights” [83]. “No one in the United States during the generation of the Framers advocated a federal power to promote, assist, or support religion.” [91} “..the First Amendment meant, indisputably, that Congress could make no law concerning the sort of establishment that characterized Lutheran Sweden, Anglican England, Roman Catholic Spain, or Presbyterian Scotland.” [139] “Every American colony enacted laws that necessitated both military service and guard duty by all able-bodied men.” [141] “The Articles of Confederation..provided that every colony shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia but said nothing about the individual’s right to be armed for his own purposes.” [151]. “What mattered was not what the Magna Carta actually said but what the people thought it said..what it had come to mean. What also mattered was the inspiring imagery..” [252]. 18th century: property “did not mean merely the ownership of material things..Locke used the word to mean all that belongs to a person..” Madison, 1792: the “larger and juster meaning” of the term property: “every thing to which a man may attach value and have a right..”.. he “may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” [255]. “Nothing in the thought of the Framers foreclosed the possibility that new rights might claim the loyalties of succeeding generations.” Virginia Chief Justice: “May we not in the progress of things, discover some great and important [right], which we don’t now think of.”

*** “When we [Americans] talk about the rule of law, we assume we’re talking about a law that promotes freedom, that promotes justice, that promotes equality.” [Justice A. M. Kennedy]

3]. Jack Rakove: “Original Meanings”: “On the principles of government, a broad consensus reigned. Government existed for the good of the many, and to protect liberty, property, and equal rights of the citizens. the idea that representation would help the government determine the common good was commonplace, and so was the belief that separation of powers was essential to the protection of rights…”Life, liberty, and property comprised the fundamental trinity of inalienable rights..Americans were also inclined to add a fourth ‘natural and inalienable’ right: ‘To worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings..”

*** “A constitution, from its nature, deals in generals, not in detail. Its framers cannot perceive minute distinctions which arise in the progress of the nation, and therefore confine it to the establishment of broad and general principles.”
[John Marshall, “Bank”]

4] The BEGINNING list of “basic American principles” is above. To this we may add the “Bill of Rights.” The public good, the general welfare, unity, stability, security, HAPPINESS, absolute separation of church and state, the common DUTY of able-bodied men to maintain a ‘well-regulated and disciplined militia”, the rule of law, separation of powers, ‘worship according to the dictates of one’s own conscience’……

5] Perspective: the framers top fears: corruption, slavery, religion, mobs. Madison’s incomplete notes for the roughly 100 day Philadelphia Convention contained the word “corruption” 54 times. 54 TIMES. They were obsessed with creating “a virtuous republic,’ of virtuous citizens, of virtuous leaders.
Slavery is America’s original sin and curse. Slave-holding states refused to join a “united states” unless slave “rights’ were maintained [which led to civil war, Jim Crow, and continued discrimination].
The Founders were very well aware of religious warfare in Europe. they were determined to remove this threat in their 1776-1800 state constitutions, Article VI, and Amendment One.
Fear of mob violence, some done in the 1780s, led to various Articles protecting property and for the calling up of the militia to suppress violence. Those fears were realized in January, 2021.

*** “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.” [Henry Clay, 1829]

6]. The list of the heretic Roberts “court” violations of basic American principles is close to endless. they have lie3d and misruled big and “small.” Just a few samples:
A] CORRUPTION, the Founders’ #l concern. Begin with “Citizens United.” “Political spending by billionaires soared” [7/21/20]: “Billionaires gave 37 times as much in political contributions..as they did 10 years earlier.”
Double Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Thomas Ricks, “First Principles”: “..the founders would be appalled by how money has come to dominate American politics..They did not design the United States to be an oligarchy…the founders would have considered corporate campaign spending the essence of political corruption.”

*** “..there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the ‘money touch,’ but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of some many glorified pawnbrokers..” [Theodore Roosevelt]

B] Racism, this heretic “court” has decided to overturn many bipartisan civil rights laws of long standing. Prominent is “Shelby County,” in which the “court” said the old Confederacy “had changed,’ therefore no need to restrict their attempts to rig voting. WITHIN 24 GHOURS !!!!!, Texas made them the fool, reinstating a previously held unconstitutional law; to be followed by other old Confederate states.

***”No man can put a chain around the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck.” [Frederick Douglass}

C] RELIGION, this heretic “court,” in a long string of cases, has now created a class of SUPER CITIZENS. People, usually “conservative Christians,” now have the “right’ to ignore laws that other Americans must follow – simply by claiming their “religious rights were excessively burdened” [by having to do what other Americans are required to do !!!!!]. These SUPER CITIZENS now have the ‘right’ to have THEIR churches and schools financed by other American taxpayers; have a ‘right’ to discriminate. RELIGIOUS DOGMA has been made American law – a TOTAL VIOLATION of all 1636-2004 American laws, intent, beliefs.

***”Reynolds”, 1879: “..to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

D]. MOBS, mob violence is now considered a major domestic terrorism threat. “U.S.Military chiefs assert American values – and a warning” [Martin Schram, 9/11/22]: Eight former defense secretaries and five former chairman of thee Joint chiefs of Staff, in an open letter, warned of possible future coup attempts.
“Guns doing the talking at protests” [Mike McIntire, 11/27/22]: “In June, armed demonstrations around the United States amounted to nearly one a day…Armed protestors use open-carry laws to intimidate opponents.”
Beginning in 2008, with “Heller,’ the heretic Roberts “court” upended over 200 years of understood law about guns in America, including 5 Supreme Court decisions. NEVER before, in English and American law, dating back over 700 years, had a “court” declared ordinary people had “rights” to carry guns in public.

*** “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the America people, just now, are in much want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while others with the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty. And it follows each of these things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” {Abraham Lincoln]

7] The heretic Roberts “court” is illegitimate, ahistorical, unConstitutional, unAmerican, and VERY destructive. They have repeatedly violated, broken, destroyed. basic American principles, understood 1636-2004.
Can any “reasonable person” ignore their PATTERNS of “winners” and “losers,” the DAMAGE they have inflicted on America in the name of “law.” Should a “reasonable American” be entitled to ask what they have done is really “law”?

*** “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law.” [Justice Brandeis]

***This is a story of a “heretic king” and a HERETIC “court.” It is a brief summary of damage done to ancient Egypt and modern America. A “heretic king” and a HERETIC ‘court” declare THEY know better; THEIR version of religion was THE correct one; THEY imposed radical beliefs on unwilling publics; THEY violated centuries of what people had come to respect and expect.

1] National Geographic: “King Tut and The Golden Age of Pharaohs:
A] page 18: “Egypt was in turmoil when Tut took the throne. Years before, the pharaoh Akhenaten..had turned tradition upside down..”
B] page 43: “..the heretic pharaoh Akhenaten threw Egypt into turmoil by turning his back on the old gods and neglecting affairs abroad…plunge Egypt into religious revolution that shattered centuries of tradition…brought the vast and powerful Egyptian empire to the brink of collapse.”

2] Michael Hayes: “The Egyptians”:
A] page 117: “Akhenaten’s new order was a reversal of what Egyptians had taken for granted. He had changed the old balance of Egyptian religious life…Akhenaten used his kingship to break the cherished Egyptian reverence for their old beliefs and practices.”

3] internet: “World History Encyclopedia”: “To those who came after Akhenaten: “..he was the “heretic king” and “the enemy” whose memory needed to be erased.”

4] Wikipedia: “This culture shift away from traditional religion was reversed after his death. Akhenaten’s monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers..”

***** KEY POINTS; “…Egypt in turmoil..had turned tradition upside down..plunge Egypt into a religious revolution that shattered centuries of tradition..”
“..a reversal of what Egyptians had taken for granted..changed the old balance of Egyptian religious life..”

5] The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump HERETIC “court”. HAS put America in turmoil; HAS shattered centuries of tradition; IA a reversal of what Americans have taken for granted; HAS changed the old balance of American religious life. PERIOD.

6] America’s oldest tradition: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Roger Williams; 1657 Flushing Remonstrance; royal charters for Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland; 1776-1800 state constitutions; Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance; 1787 Northwest Ordinance; Madison’s first Amendment One proposal: “The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed.”

7] see Leonard Levy’s “The Establishment Clause” for voluminous evidence from Baptist preachers, petitions from Virginia evangelicals, state constitutions. ALL DEMANDING ‘SEPARATION. OF. CHURCH. AND. STATE.” A top fear, perhaps. THE. top fear of ordinary founding generations of Americans: a church they didn’t attend would seek to control their lives.

8] see Edwin Gaustad’s “Faith of the Founders.” Four 1776-1800 state constitutions forbad a “religious test for office” [Article VI] Eight 1776-1800 state constitutions prohibited an active minister from their government. ****** Time Out! THINK ON THIS – banned an active minister from government!!!!!!!!!!! – Just what are 1776-1800 Americans saying about “separation of church and state”. -WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most had this: “There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another..” **** ANY doubt what they meant????????

9] Gaustad, page 141: 1776 North Carolina constitution, Articles XXXIV: “..neither shall any person, on any pretense whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform..”
***** ON ANY PRETENSE WHATSOEVER compelled to support any church not voluntarily his

********** NOW, dear people: study the 2005-2022 HERETIC “court” record for all the OBVIOUS. VIOLATIONS of what the founding generations said, intended, WROTE. about “separation of church and state”

10] CLEAR FOUNDING GENERATIONS INTENTS: 1]. no church YOU don’t attend can have ANY legal ability to force YOU to follow its dogma [DOBBS!!!!!!!]; 2] no church YOU don’t attend can have ANY access to YOUR tax dollars [many decisions!]; 3]. YOU do NOT have to pay for maintaining ANY religious buildings; 4] the religious dogma of NO church can be put into American law [anti-contraceptive]; 5] neither YOU or ANY taxpayers can be forced to subsidize another church’s schools – in ANY manner.

11] Constitution’s Preamble: the U.S. government is created to: “..form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..promote the general Welfare..”
********* the HERETIC ‘court’ has violated ALL those requirements: its radical decisions have divided Americans; have made a MOCKERY of “Justice;” have insured there would be no domestic Tranquility; by aiding political corruption [Citizens United, allowing gerrymandering, Shelby County] have done the OPPOSITE of promoting the general Welfare.
********** the HERETIC ‘court” has violated American traditions on religion; on what a “well-regulated militia” is; on political corruption [the Founders’ number one fear]; on ‘no man is above or below the law” – and, in so doing. “..threw [America] into turmoil.”

12]. IRONY DEPARTMENT!!! – public prayer. The HERETIC ‘court” so eager to reward favored clients [which they promised they did NOT have!!!], said a football coach was ENTITLED to pray on the 50-yard line after games [no matter how much pain THAT inflicted on players], apparently in massive ignorance of what the Christian religion’s founder said in Matthew 6: 5-6: “When you pray, do not do as the hypocrites do, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of streets, so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward. Instead, when you pray, enter your room and shut the door, and pray to thy Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret shall reward you openly.”

13] SINISTER DEPARTMENT – creation of super citizens above the law. By numerous decisions, the HERETIC ‘court” has made a MOCKERY of “equal justice under law”. by elevating those who claim “sincerely held religious beliefs”. above laws other Americans are required to follow, even during a world-wide pandemic.

14] DAMAGE DEPARTMENT – the Egyptians had an advantage over America. After the “heretic king” died they could tear down his statues and erase his memory. After the HERETIC “court” is no more, it will be much more difficult to erase THEIR memory and reverse all the DAMAGE IT HAS INFLICTED. Not to just the concept of a nation under fair law, but to ALL the various social and governmental institutions, and even more – to all the innocent ordinary Americans whose lives have been DAMAGED.
The various corruptions will be, in many cases, very difficult to undo: the people who couldn’t vote, the people unjustly dealt with, damage done to Americans faith in government and law, the CORRUPT LAWS enacted.
There is considerable evidence Americans have left organized religions due to the politicalization of religion, some of this attributable to the words and actions of the HERETICAL ‘court.”
The fact this HERETIC ‘court” is made up of 6 members all raised in one conservative fundamentalist church has only increased opposition and resentment by the American public. That many radical decisions reflect the dogma of their church put into law is beginning to stain the “court” as a real court, a respected American institution.
When serious articles about this HERETIC ‘court” talk in terms of “a Catholic Court,” or recently {Jan-Feb, 2023 The Atlantic} say the infamous Dobbs. decision is “..a victory for the bishops” and that the judicial branch “structure of appointed potentates resembles the Church hierarchy,: we – as a nation – are in very dangerous waters.
As dissenting Supreme Court Justices have said, many/most of the HERETIC “court’s” wounds have been self-inflicted by the HERETIC PHARAOHS themselves. God may NOT be able to save this “court.”

Article III, “Good Behavior.” The 6 Republican “justices” have violated tenets of Article III, Section I: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..”
In deciding the merits of this accusation, consider, for a beginning, all the MOUNTAIN of evidence already supplied in posts I-VI. Consider the personal conduct of the Republican “justices” off the bench. They are becoming increasingly suspect of highly partisan views because of that off-bench conduct. Consider many other factors.

Consider the following dictionary definitions of “good”: “upright, honorable, charitable, trustworthy, beneficial,, competent, qualified, suitable.” Are YOU comfortable with ANY of these definitions when discussing ANY of the 6 current Republican “justices”?

Consider their conduct during their “job applications” – the Senate hearings. Have ANY of them been accused of prevarication or perjury; of broken promises to Senators? Have there been accusations of parts of their records having been “kept under wraps”?
Have there been questions raised about why THEY were nominated for the Supreme Court? Have there been questions about their selection/nomination process having violated the Constitution? Which Article? Once on the Court, have their votes raised concerns about that Article, and their Senate testimony? Should they have accepted a Supreme Court position?
Consider the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court’s” track record, the 2005-2022 PATTERN. Is there a PATTERN of “winners” and “losers”? If so, is this PATTERN asymmetric from earlier Supreme Courts?
Consider their oath to do “equal justice to rich and poor,” to uphold the Constitution. Have they IN FACT done “equal justice” to rich and poor? Have they, in real life results, upheld the Constitution?
The Preamble has these REQUIREMENTS of American governmental bodies: form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare. Have Roberts ‘court” decisions done this?
Consider their conduct on the bench. HOW have they operated? Have they followed accepted norms of conduct, 1789-2005 precedents? What is the Quality and Honesty of their opinions? How have they treated evidence? What is the FACTUAL TRUTH of their opinions?

Consider the following evidence. YOU decide if the 6 Republican “supreme court” appointees have exhibited the “good Behavior” Article III REQUIRES they display; if they have honored their oaths of office, if they have followed judicial codes of ethical behavior REQUIRED of American judges.

1] Missouri Senator Josh Hawley: “The bargain has never been explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities – or at least keep your mouth shut about it – and in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise. That’s what we’ve told for years now..I question how judges who will hold to this philosophy end up on the bench. I question the bargain that people of faith have been asked to hold to for all these years.” [Greenhouse, “Justice on the Brink”]

2] “Christian nationalist preacher and Trump acolyte Robert Jeffress discussed the case [Roe] on Fox News, explaining “the deal”: “We’re gonna see now what the justices do and if they uphold their part of the deal.” Trump and McConnell put Barrett on the court, and the court and the court finally ends Roe. That was the deal.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]

ANY questions so far? You understand “the deal”; understand “the script”?????????

3] Damn Linker: “The Theocons”: Richard J. Neuhaus, far more than evangelicals, “Catholics are uniquely posed”..to transform the late 20th century into ‘the Catholic Moment.’…time had come for the church to assume “its rightful role in the culture-forming task of constructing a religiously informed public philosophy for the American experiment in ordered liberty.” Neuhaus and colleagues felt the Church provided a unifying agenda to transform the U.S. into a homogeneously traditionalist Catholic-Christian nation. If necessary, BY. FORCE.

4] “As Federalist Society cofounder Steven Calabresi said..the Federalist Society has “absolutely helped kept Justices such as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito in check: When one tries to think about what kinds of checks exist on officials as powerful as Supreme Court Justices I think the check of criticism by law schools, journalists, and conservative think tanks like the Federalist Society, criticism from those quarters is something they notice.” [Hollis-Brusky; “Ideas With Consequences”]

***”You seem..to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.” [Thomas Jefferson, 1820]

5] “Hobby Lobby”: “For the first time in American history, the Court held..a for-profit employer may cite its owner’s religious beliefs in order to diminish the rights of its employees. And it ddid so by ignoring the limited goals Congress intended to accomplish when it enacted RFRA.” [Millhiser: “Injustices”]

6] “What is striking about..recent decisions of the Roberts Court..is how they have interpreted statutes to protect business in a way that undermines Congress’s purpose..This Court’s pro-business orientation has been at the expense of consumers, employees, and patients..this is also evident in the Roberts Court’s recent decisions regarding arbitration and class action suits and its employment discrimination rulings.” [Chemerinsky: “The Case Against the Supreme Court”]

7] Wal-Mart v. Dukes: “The Court came to this conclusion despite the fact..the plaintiffs presented a great deal of evidence to show..Walmart had company-wide practices and policies that caused sex discrimination..statistical studies..expert witnesses..large number of affidavits..” [Chemerinsky: “Case Against the Supreme Court’}

8] “What is striking about..especially the Roberts Court, is that it has systematically made it more difficult for people to sue the government when it acts wrongly..for money damages..much harder for those facing injury from government unconstitutional actions to get an injunction to stop such conduct.” [Chemerinsky: “Case Against Supreme Court”]

9] “..two projects which Roberts..was making steady progress..One involved race, the other religion. Roberts’ long-term plan was to change how the Constitution understood both..the project involved..weaponizing the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause, turning it from its historic role as a shield that protected believers from government interference into a sword that vaulted believers into a position of privilege.” [Greenhouse: “Justice on the Brink”]

WHY does a “supreme court justice’ have ‘A PROJECT’????????????? Is “weaponizing” one part of the First Amendment against it companion clause. “good BEHAVIOR’???????????????/

10] “Since the Heller decision..reinterpreted the Second Amendment..the mounting frustration of Justices Thomas and Alito, who complained regularly..the court was turning the Second Amendment into a ‘second-class right’…..New York City repealed the ordinance, rendering the case moot..but..Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch did not want to let the case go. It was simply too inviting a vehicle..” [Greenhouse: Justice on the Brink”]

“..too inviting a vehicle..” for WHAT? WHY do “justices’ look for “a vehicle”???????????????????

11] “..the court has shown its intensions in both the cases it selects and the broad decisions it reaches. ‘This term has revealed the court to be in a hurry to tick off the Republican Party’s policy goals – especially the ones they’re unable to enact in the political process’, the justices “seem to be bending over backwards to address their pet issues.'” G. Epps; November/December, 2022 Washington Monthly: “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”]

“..in a hurry to tick off Republican Party goals” – does this fit under Article III’s REQUIREMENT for “good Behavior” for federal judges??? “addressing their pet issues”???????? Do judges operating under the REQUIREMENT of “good Behavior”. have “pet issues’ on the federal bench???????????????/

12] “..the picture as of June, 2018, was of a highly partisan majority eager to defer to even the most extravagant initiatives of the Trump Administration.” [Epps, “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”]

13] “The draft of Alito’s majority opinion overturning Roe..is right-wing Republican politics masquerading as law.” [Chemerinsky: “Brazenly political court shows it will..”; 5/8/22; Pioneer Press]

14]. Kagan said the court should not be “wandering around just inserting itself into every hot button issue in America” and it especially “shouldn’t be doing that in a way that reflects one ideology” or “one set of political values over another.”
[J.Gresko; “From left and right..”; 10/27/22; Assoc. Press]

“right-wing Republican politics masquerading as law” ????????????????????? [“good Behavior” ???]

15] in 4 years, the Trump Administration won 28 of 41 requests on the “shadow docket.” Only 8 such requests were filed in the previous 16 Bush and Obama years – won only 4. “By the end of Trump’s term, the “shadow docket” looked like collusion between Trump justices and the Trump Administration to advance the Crusade..Of all..entities that brought “shadow docket’ cases, only two groups won: the Trump Administration and churches.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]

“shadow docket” PATTERN ‘looked like COLLUSION between Trump ‘justices’ and Trump Administration – does THIS sound like “good Behavior” on the part of Article III observing “supreme court justices” ??????????????????/

16] “The Missouri ministry decision weaponized religious freedom. Roberts ignored procedure to decide a collusive case: ignored..facts to pretend..a religious ministry was not a religious ministry, while still claiming religious freedom as the central rationale..focused only on the rights of these church going Christians to the exclusion of every other American.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]

Wow!!! Did YOU have to read that twice [or more] to untangle the Roberts “logic’ [let alone “legal principles !!!]. Does this seem to follow “good Behavior”??? Is it “good Behavior” for a judge to give one group of Americans a privileged status over the rest of the innocent victims. – YOU ???

17]. “Bostock” [2020]: “Gorsuch left the gate open for the Crusaders. He even drew their attention to it; “employers in other cases may raise free exercise [of religion] arguments that merit careful consideration.” [Seidel: “American Crusade”]

!!!!!!!!!!!!! is dropping hints about cases that could be sent for favorable results – for privileged people/groups – “good Behavior” ???????????

18] The 2011-2017 Supreme Court “dismantled much..campaign finance, weakened voting rights, created new religious liberty doctrines.” [Millhiser: “The Agenda”]

19] Supreme Court shifting power to itself: “remaking American law” [“The Agenda”] See: “Amassing of Power By Supreme Court Alarms Scholars,” Adam Liptak; 12/20/22 New York Times: “..the current court..has been rapidly accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.” See: “A Court of First Resort? [Jamelle Boule; 12/11/22 New York Times]: “”The court. Lemley writes, ‘has taken significant, simultaneous steps to restrict the power of Congress, the administrative state, the states and lower federal courts..by undercutting the ability of any entity to do something the justices don’t like.'”

*****”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.”
[James Madison, Federalist #47]

“good Behavior” ???????????

VI. Amending the Constitution. This “court” has violated Article V”. the process for amending the Constitution. NO Supreme Court can amend [change, alter, delete, add provisions to] the Constitution. This “court” by direct attacks on several Amendments, HAS attempted to, in REALITY, amend the Constitution.

Article V: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments…or, on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments..”
The Supreme Court, ANY Supreme Court, is NOWHERE listed in this – meaning the Court has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER over changing, i.e., amending the Constitution. Dictionary definition, amend: “to modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from..”

***”Judges are but men, and in all ages have shown a fair share of frailty. Alas! Alas! The worst crimes in history have been perpetrated under their sanction..” [Charles Sumner, Massachusetts Republican]

The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “supreme court” has been DOCUMENTED in amending the Constitution in several ways; below are just a few of their methods, as reported by legal scholars and analysts:
1] Ronald Dworkin, “The Supreme Court Phalanx”: “..the new conservative phalanx overruled an amazing number of past decisions..in many cases without admitting..they were doing so…Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are judges on a mission: to destroy the impressive constitutional structure that long succession of prior judges have built and shaped in the decades following the Second World War..These four justices do not represent the..jurisprudence of most American constitutional scholars.”

2] Access to courts is provided by Amendments V, Vi, Vii. Other constitutional rights provided in Amendments I, III, IV, VIII, IX, XIII, XIV, XV. Erwin Chemerinsky’s “Closing the Courthouse Door How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable” documents case after case how the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “supreme court” has managed to limit and REDEFINE AWAY citizen’s access to these rights. Rights mean NOTHING if one can’t actually use them – a major Roberts “court” strategy [they exist on paper, but YOU can’t actually use them – diabolical]

3] Federalist Society 2018 conference, Senator Mike Lee Utah: “..urged conservatives “to chart a new course. The good news is that, thanks to President Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority, we have a Supreme Court that should be ready to do its part in this project.” “Pro-firearms groups, which had spent millions toward Kavanaugh’s confirmation, were disappointed..his first term didn’t bring the gun rights victories they’d bank on…The Roberts Court continued to chip at the wall between church and state, and to favor those who didn’t want to comply with federal laws that conflict with their beliefs.” [Jackie Calmes, “Dissent. The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture Of The Court”]

4] “Shelby County”: “The majority based its opinion on novel constitutional grounds..”equal sovereignty”… The principles ..Congress must treat all the states in the same way was at odds with the usual understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [Joan Biskopic, “The Chief”]

5] “Hobby Lobby” The decision, “marking for the first time the justices found that secular corporations held religious rights..” [Biskopic, “The Chief”]

6] “Trinity” “..the Court..declared for the first time..the Constitution’s guarantees of the free exercise of religion required public funding of a religious entity.” [Biskopic, “The Chief”]

7] *** “This Case Shouldn’t Be With The Supreme Court” [New York Times, 12/11/22, editorial]: “The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history, conservative icon former judge, J.Michael Luttig, on ‘Moore v. Harper’.”
The case is about the WACKO “independent state legislature theory.” Naturally, it is favored by THE three most reactionary and antidemocratic Republican “justices.” “Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country.” Under this theory, which has “no basis in law, history or precedent,” a state legislature could become dictator in any state, on that state’s issues, on presidential electors. This could become THE ultimate “amending of the Constitution.”
Times editorial: “Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. [The opposition] is “a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing group of the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights groups. On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters – among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman..”

8]. “Modern constitutional law as we have known it ended Friday. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe..” [Noah Feldman; 6/26/22; “Originalism was supposed to deliver judicial restraint. It doesn’t”; New York Times]

9] “..it’s clear that over the years the Supreme Court has become yet another partisan institution – and one that’s unaccountable to the American people..it’s hard to see the court’s aggressive moves to remake constitutional law as anything but antidemocratic. the fight to undo Roe..has been a fight to remake our country – and it has succeeded.” [Mary Ziegler; 6/25/22; New York Times: “The Battle to End Roe Has Changed Democracy”]

10] “Once religious freedom is weaponized, they’ll carry it into every other legal fight..public health measures and civil rights laws..license to harm others won’t end with discrimination against LGBTQ..reestablish white supremacy..the fight for voting rights..violate traffic laws..private religious schools at taxpayer expense.. deny bodily autonomy to lesser groups and reproductive freedom to people deemed subservient…Most importantly..declare unconstitutional any failure to recognize these privileges..To declare that equality is hostility..” This “reorients First Amendment religious clauses…NRA “rewriting the Second Amendment succeeded” in 2008 “Heller”…shadow docket use “rewrote the First Amendment.” In “Espinoza”, “Roberts redefined state and church separation.” [Andrew Seidel: “American Crusade”]

11] “The Roberts Court has given major corporations sweeping power to immunize themselves…A Republican Supreme Court will fundamentally alter the structure of the American system of government, and who is allowed to exercise power within that system..Partisan gerrymanders..violate the First Amendment.. The Supreme Court ..permitted redistricting laws that transformed legislative elections into little more than a formality..because Republicans were all but certain to win no matter what voters decided.” [Ian Millhiser: “The Agenda How A Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America”]

12]. “..the Court has..drastically changed its jurisdiction and procedures, most importantly with the rise of the emergency, or “shadow” docket..that allows the justices to intervene in lower court cases at any point it chooses, awarding “provisional” victories to favored litigants..The shadow docket has become a kind of appellate star chamber..closed to the public or the parties, and aggressively wielded in aid of the Court’s reactionary project.” [Garrett Epps: “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”; November/December, 2022; Washington Monthly]

13]. “Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that while Miranda rights have “roots” in the Constitution, “a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution.” Alito: “[a]llowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages would have little deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems..” [!!!!!!!!!!] {Sacramento Bee editorial: SCOTUS undermines rights of suspects,” 7/7/22]

14]. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday embraced a vision of the Second Amendment that is profoundly at odds with precedent and the dangers that American communities face today..It was only in 2008..with its decision in ..Heller, that conservatives on the court divined an individual right to bear arms hidden somewhere in the 27 words of the Second Amendment.” [6/26/22, New York Times editorial: “Placing Gun Rights Above Human Life”]

15] 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.” [Robert Barnes; 7/10/22, Washington Post Weekly: “Supreme Court upheaval is swift, sweeping”]

16]. “The court could announce a set of rules hat, together, read the Constitution to allow virtually no consideration of race, regardless of the purpose or goals.” Kate Shaw, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law professor. [Adam Liptak; 10/3/22 New York Times: “Race Has Role in Major Cases Before Justices”]

***** Very Important: YOU must examine the above, see THE PATTERN!!!!!!, and BEGIN to understand the MOUNTAIN of evidence NOT presented here on how the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” has been AMENDING THE. CONSTITUTION. by judicial fiat. Do YOUR own research, from mainstream legal sources. Ask. YOURSELF: WHY have all these people said this broad PATTERN of accusations against the Roberts “court”? Do they ALL. “hate America”? Are they ALL. out to get this particular ‘court”?

America is now whatever “democracy” it is or isn’t because of positive reforms [improvements, not just changes] made since 1901 on virtually everything. America became the envy of the world because of all these positive changes enabling more human dignity – to the point that people from around the world are, literally, dying. to share this.

The economic-political-religious-social “right” has been engaged in a determined, very well funded, counter-revolution against all the “democratic’ improvements these real reforms made possible. They have succeeded rolling back much of the democratic reforms enacted, 1901– .
Unable to get much of their agenda through democratic state legislatures and Congress, they have resorted. – BY THEIR OWN CONFESSIONS – to the judicial system, most especially the Supreme Court.
Again, by THEIR OWN CONFESSIONS – they have weaponized the judicial system – making a mockery of the motto above the Supreme Court’s own entrance, making a mockery of their own oaths of office.

They have also made a mockery of the Constitution itself. They have, in fact, illegally amended the Constitution: by redefining rights out of it, by. putting rights into it [for favored groups].

***St. Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.”

***Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

V. “not in the Constitution.” The infamous Dred Scott, II decision – otherwise known as “Dobbs” – stressed abortion was not, could not , be protected because it “was not in the Constitution.”

Roberts “court” versus the Constitution, Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Not in the Constitution” is null and void by Amendment IX alone. Period. End of discussion.

Benjamin Rush [11/30/1787]: at Pennsylvania ratification convention: “Our rights are not yet all known, how then could they be properly enumerated?”

Abortion has much company not being in the U.S. Constitution.
– “God” is not in the Constitution. Therefore we must conclude “God” doesn’t exist.
– “Woman ” is not in the Constitution. Therefore, “women” don’t exist
– “Sex” is not in the Constitution. Therefore all you males [apparently alone on earth] can not, must not have sex.
– “Marriage” is not in the Constitution – therefore cannot exist.
– “Reproduction” is not in the Constitution. Therefore you males must not, can not reproduce yourselves.

“A 1956 statement by Southern members ofCongress who objected to “Brown”…made a similar point: “The original Constitution does not mention education.” [Adam Liptak, 8/2/22, New York Times: “The Abortion Decision, Haunted by Brown v. Board of Education”]. This may explain why there are so many ignorant males.

Also not in the Constitution: aspirin, anti-biotics, dentists, doctors, nurses, hospitals, crutches, eye glasses, surgery – which means YOU can not have use of them – because they can’t exist!!!!!!!!!!!!

“The Constitution makes reference to voting 15 times in the original document and another 22 in amendments. But “..none of those mentions makes an explicit declaration that Americans have a specific right to vote..The authors of the Constitution, many..deeply suspicious of universal suffrage..most of the founding fathers wanted to limit voting rights of property owners…James Madison warned that voting should be restricted to the wealthy.” [Michael Wines, 10/27/22, New York Tiles: “Does the Constitution Guarantee a Right to Vote? The Answer May Surprise You”]

Also not in the Constitution, therefore do not exist: cars, jet planes, indoor plumbing, modern heating/AC, radio, TV, internet, store-bought clothes, refrigerators, microwaves, modern stoves, electric lights & appliances – essentially YOU are not allow to enjoy 2lst century life as you know it…because: “It’s not in the Constitution.”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also not in the Constitution, many terms and concepts of crucial importance to constitutional law: fair trial, executive agreement, beyond reasonable doubt, spending power, clear & present danger, cross-examination, “separation of church & state,” war powers, exigent circumstances, public purpose, “separate but equal.” presumption of innocence, equal justice, right to privacy, right to travel, right to silence… [Leonard Levy: “Original Intent and The Framer’s Constitution”]

Chief Justice John Marshall [Bank of the United States”]: “A Constitution, from its nature, deals in generals, not in detail. Its framers cannot perceive minute distinctions which arise in the progress of the nation, and therefore confine it to the establishment of broad and general principles.”
“Broad and general principles..” – NOT. word parsing and cherry-picking. NOT twisted falsehoods.

James Wilson, 1787 Philadelphia: “…we are providing a Constitution for future generations, not merely for the peculiar circumstance of the moment.”

Consider the following, from the writers of the Constitution:
– during the 1791 House bank debate: Representative John Vining [del] summarily dismissed “original intent” as the “opinion” of 1787, which he thought had BECOME OBSOLETE: “not sufficient authority..for Congress at the present time to construe the Constitution.”
– during the 1796 House treaty debate, Albert Gallatin [Pa]: the only opinions about the meanings of the text Gallatin endorsed were those of the ratifying conventions who favored ratification : because they alone, acting on behalf of the people, adopted the Constitution..”
– James Madison, 1824: “our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders…Some of the terms of the Federal Constitution have already undergone perceptual deviations from their original import.”

Within 35 years of its adoption, the U.S. Constitution has ALREADY been changed by the PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT!!!!!!!
By things NOT in it. By interpretations different “from their original import.”
So – how much credence should YOU gave “justice” Alito’s claim “not in the Constitution” “discovery” 235 years later? 235 years after numerous other Supreme Courts had failed to see Alito’s “wisdom”?

It gets worse.

The infamous “Dobbs” decision opinion: “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 on prohibition of abortion on pain of punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

Below SOME of THE REAL HISTORICAL TRUTH. How embarrassing the “supreme court” doesn’t know:

World Book Encyclopedia: “Before the 1800s, there were few organized 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…Some courts, however, refused to impose penalties for early abortion even after the passage of these laws.”

Wikipedia: “Abortion has existed in North America since the European colonization of the Americas, was a fairly common practice, and was not always illegal or controversial.”
“By common law, abortion was legal, and only after quickening it was not allowed [14-26 weeks, between 4th and 6th month]. Its determination was usually at the discretion of the pregnant woman, but the rules were unsettled or unclear in written statutes.”
“When the U.S. became independent, must U.S. states continued to apply English common law to abortion.”
Legal scholar Sheldon Gaman: “The right to bodily integrity including abortion can be traced back to the Magna Carta, which was imported in the U.S. Constitution from English law.”
Connecticut was the first state to regulate abortion in 1821.”
“In 1859, abortion was not a crime in 21 of 33 states…this changed starting in the 1860s under influence of anti-imigrant, Catholic sentiment.”
By the 1930s, licensed doctors performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.
Decriminalization began in 1967; by 1973, abortion was legal in 20 states.
Roe “returned abortion to its liberalized pre-1820 status.”

C.A.P., abortion – “Scarlet Letters”. [R.Dine interview]:
“If a woman living in New England in the 17th and 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.”
“Anti-abortion organizations such as the National Right to Life spin a narrative in which legal abortion is a historical anomaly and an unnatural consequence of America’s loose moral standards…Their “abortion history timeline describes ‘a few rogue doctors and midwives’ performing abortions in early America, only as far back as the 1850s…In reality, trusted midwives and medical practioners performed abortions from the beginning of American colonial life and throughout world history.”
“When the Constitution was written, abortion was legal until quickening>”
“The Puritans brought their views on abortion from..England, where the procedure was legal until quickening.”
“..early American medical books even gave instructions for ‘suppressing the courses,’ on inducing abortion.”
Mid-19th century male doctors “began to belittle ‘irregular’ doctors such as homeopaths and midwives, in an attempt to assert the authority and legitimacy of male-dominated scientific medical ..”scientific” physicians attacked legal abortion but it was midwives and other ‘unscientific’ medical practioners who safely performed the procedure.”
“..since ancient timers, women have [used] a variety of contraceptive methods beyond abortion..”

The above is only a BEGINNING to the REFUTATION of the infamous “Dobbs” assertion that abortion is not “deeply rooted’ in American history and tradition. Abortion and contraception are deeply rooted in human history; in American colonization; in English law dating to the Magna Carta. was widely, legally, practiced, not even regulated until 1821; not a crime in w21 states in 1859.
Ask YOURSELF this: how can the U.S. “supreme court,” in 2022, not know the above encyclopedia FACTS?????????? With all their resources, how is this possible. YOU can go online – and look this up!!!!!!!!!

Unless they DIDN’T want to know? Unless they DIDN’T want. YOU to know?

Bottom line truth: opposition to abortion and contraception comes from fundamentalist religions, seeking to impose THEIR. religious beliefs on ALL Americans by “supreme court” fiat.
THIS is plainly unConstitutional by the language of the 1787 federal Constitution and Amendments, and – unknown to too many American – the 1776-1800 state constitutions which preceded it. There is also much 1770-1800 documented evidence from many people, including respected religious leaders – demanding “separation of church and state. A major, TOP FEAR of ordinary Americans in this era: being told what to do by a church they DIDN’T attend.

NOTHING is more unConstitutional, more unAmerican, in all recorded American history and tradition – than the imposition of religious beliefs on YOU by a church YOU don’t attend. To prevent this, the First Amendment was written. The Roberts “court’ has managed to twist this into what the Founders were absolutely against.

Would YOU buy a used car from any of the 6 current Republican “justices”?????? If even tempted – check first to see if it has 4 tires, then under the hood – does it have an engine? Do. they even own the car? How true is the reported mileage? How many accidents has it been in?i

III. “Originalism” / “Textualism” – is a cooked-up “theory” purporting to tell us what the Framers “really” intended. It is GARBAGE. It is a FRAUD. It is a JOKE. Worst of all, it is a BIG LIE.
Here we will examine two parts: one – the STUPID; two – the SINISTER. Which will only be the beginning of the MOUNTAIN of evidence – cases, rhetoric, studies, etc – that proves what JOKE, what a TRAVESTY of law “originalism” itself and right-wing [R-W] theories on law are. As some legal experts have said, if you believe in “originalism” / “Textualism” – then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

“The popular myth of “original intent” rests on the notion..there is somehow a single “clear” intent hidden in each phrase of the Constitution. [The phrase “clear intent”…ought to serve as a warning that an attempt to pick your pocket is in progress.]. That idea confuses the task of reading the Constitution with the work of a Protestant believer reading the Bible.” [Garrett Epps: “Wrong And Dangerous. Ten Right-Wing Myths About Our Constitution”]

Leonard Levy: “Original Intent and The Framers Constitution”:
-June 16-17, 1789 House debates: “Members of the House who had attended the Convention divided on [original intent]; none invoked the authority of the Convention..No one asked those who had been in Philadelphia what the Convention thought of the issue [executive power]..”
– Madison [9/l5/1821] rejected original intent of Framers as authoritative guide to its meaning: “As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution that debate and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character.”
– Justice Story [1833]: Commentators on the Constitution: “In different states..different and very opposite objections are known to have prevailed..there can be no certainty..the different state conventions in ratifying the Constitution, gave the same uniform interpretation to its language, or that, even in a single state convention, the same reasoning prevailed with the majority..”
– The definitive statement on a constitutional jurisprudence of original intent was made by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case..” [prior to 1999, universally seen as THE worst Supreme Court ruling EVER]
– “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.”
– Madison [1824]: “Our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders..Some of the terms of the Federal Constitution have already undergone perceptible deviations from their original import.”

Jack Rakove: “Original Meanings”:
– “..originalism is vulnerable to two powerful criticisms..it is always in some fundamental sense anti-democratic, seeks to subordinate judgment of present generations to wisdom of distant [political] ancestors..the real problems of reconstructing coherent intentions and understandings from evidence of history raises serious questions..of originalist forays to yield definitive conclusions..”
– “..the notion..the Constitution had some fixed and well-known meaning at the moment of its adoption dissolves into a mirage..”
– Madison [4/6/1796]: questions about the Constitution’s meaning could be answered in light of ratification debates, but NOT by consulting Philadelphia framers’ intentions..”The instrument that came from them was nothing more than a draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several state conventions.” ***[this ALONE, should end “originalism’ validity]
-Benjamin Rush, in the Pennsylvania convention [11/30/1787]: “Our rights are not yet all known, how then could they be properly enumerated.” **[are Thomas-Scalia-Alito calling Mr. Rush, who was there at creation a liar?????]

Garrett Epps, “Wrong and Dangerous,”: “..far right ‘originalism’..comprises a variety of techniques designed to eclipse the text and history of the Constitution and impose a specific meaning on each provision – a meaning that by coincidence usually matches the political program of the twenty-first century Right.”
1] “Everybody knows” originalism: “..by saying..’everybody knows’ what the framers really thought about a given subject, and thus the words on the page couldn’t mean what they seem to say.”
2] “Da Vinci C ode” originalism: “..conservative interpreters simply wipe out the words of the Constitution themselves and insist..they are a secret reference to other words.”
3]. “Voices in the Head” originalism: “..the interpreter confronts evidence..some members – perhaps most of – the founding generation did, in fact not interpret the Constitution in the way the right wing now needs it to be interpreted.”
4] “Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain” originalism: “If the evidence is strong, you simply deny..this particular framer is particularly important.” [“Madison’s view of church and state is very inconvenient for the Far Right, is often shuffled off stage..”]
5] “Foresight” originalism: “If all else fails, the Right abandons the idea of original “intent” or “meaning” and simply says..a given idea must be unconstitutional because the Founders would never have foreseen it.” [# one insult for governmental act: “unprecedented”]

**** Now we move from the merely STUPID of “originalism” to the more SINISTER…..
Question: WHY is the Far Right so determined to get us back to 1787????? Consider…

Jerry Fresia: “Toward an American Revolution”:
– From 1650-1750, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer. In 1770 Boston, the top 1% owned 44% of the wealth. Property qualifications were required to vote, in 1750 Pennsylvania that meant only 8% of rural men and 2% of Philadelphia men could vote. By 1760, there had been 18 rebellions against colonial government and 40 major protest riots. Tennant riots led to carving Vermont out of New York state. By 1776, 10% of the white population owned nearly 50% of the wealth.
– “Military Defeat of Common People: Shays Rebellion”: “a series of defiant and militant showdowns..between Framers and..common people in 12 of 13 states..choosing the direction..the new nation would move.”
-“..in ..[the] mind of..Framers, it was every man for himself.” TheFramers wanted “freedom from others and freedom to accumulate wealth.’ In a contractual economy power shifted to property owners. The state as coercive force “is the key to making the market system work.”
– Delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention were chosen between 10/16/86 – 2/28/87, the height of rebellion. Madison: Shays Rebellion “contributed more to uneasiness which preceded..Convention..than those..from inadequacy of the Confederation..”
– “It is .. important to remember how swiftly the Framers turned to repressive measures to curb political expression when that expression did not accommodate their system of privilege.. Sam Adams engineered a Riot Act which prohibited twelve or more armed persons from congregating in public and which permitted county sheriffs to kill rioters.” Articles I and IV contain provisions against domestic violence.

Michael Parenti: “Democracy for the Few”:
– in 12 of 13 states, only property-owning White males could vote or hold office. Excluded; all Native Americans, persons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males without sufficient property. Property qualifications for holding office were so steep they excluded most White males who could vote. Absence of secret ballot and “of real choice among candidates and programs led to widespread apathy.”
– “Not long before the Constitutional Convention, the French charge d’affairs wrote his government; “Although there are no nobles in America, there is a class of men denominated ‘gentlemen.’..Almost all of them dreaded the efforts of the people to despoil them of their possessions, and moreover, they are creditors, and therefore interested in strengthening the government..it is for their interest to establish the credit of the United States in Europe..by the exact payments of debts, and to grant to Congress powers extensive enough to compel the people to contribute for this purpose.”
– “The framers [felt] democracy was ‘the worst of all political evils,’ as Elbridge Gerry put it. For Edmund Randolph, the country’s problems were caused by ‘the turbulence and follies of democracy.’ Roger Sherman concurred, ‘The people should have as little to do as may be about the Government..Alexander Hamilton..’The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.’ .. George Washington..urged the delegates not to produce a document merely ‘to please the people.'”

SO – what would a “reasonable person” think about the desires of recent Republican “supreme court” “justices” to return to the “original intent” of the 1787 Constitution ? The world of 1787 was run by and controlled by wealthy white men. A vast majority of people – women [50%], minorities, “lesser’ whites’ had no power and little wealth. The recent Republican “supreme courts” are OBVIOUSLY asking America to go BACKWARDS. Why do that???????????

Michael Parenti: “In sum, the Constitution was consciously designed as a conservative document. elaborately equipped with a system of minority checks in order to resist the pressure of popular tides…For the Founders, liberty meant something different from and antithetical to democracy. It meant liberty to invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate wealth and to secure its possessions without encroachment by sovereign or populace.”

An America without the 27 Amendments would be a far different, far less ‘democratic’ country. The SINISTER aspect of “originalism” is that it seeks, by “supreme court’ fiat, to return America back to that status.

Examine the entire 1969-2022 PATTERN of the Republican dominated “supreme courts,” big and small. From major decisions alone: 2000 Bush-Gore; “Citizens United” and earlier decisions making buying elections a “right”; “Shelby County” gutting a 50-yer bipartisan voting act tat worked; INVENTING a personal gun ‘right’ – in the face of mounting gun violence; writing the “Establishment Clause” out of Amendment I – creating the equivalent of official tax-supported churches; creating a class of SUPER CITIZENS whose “religious rights” make them a law unto themselves; trying to gut the government’s regulatory powers to protect the public; giving corporations “rights.”

Republican appointed “supreme court justices” have made a MOCKERY of the law, the Constitution, American history. They have made America less safe, less democratic; but far more cruel and corrupt.

Want more? Read Samuel Marcosson’s “Original Sin” – which destroys “originalism, saying “..the jurisprudence of original intent..has failed on its own terms..” Make sure you read the “Noters.”
Read Ray Raphael”s “Constitutional Myths.” His chapter 8 DESTROYS “originalism in 22 pages and l2 pages of notes.

This isn’t rocket science – only a determination on YOUR part not to be lied to. Come on people – the world’ most advanced modern nation is supposed to live on 1787 terms? Are you kidding me?????
If we go back to 1787 – means YOU give up TV, computers, the internet, flush toilets, clean water, refrigerators, microwaves, cars, jet planes………………

Look above – the people who WROTE the Constitution – disagreed about what they had done, AT THE TIME!!!!!
People who WROTE the Constitution said, on paper, within a few years – the Constitution was ALREADY
being interpreted in ways that the authors had not said!!!!!!!!!!!

So a bunch of “political hacks,: sitting on the “supreme court”. 200 tears AFTER THE FACT. – are telling YOU – that THEY “know what the Framers meant. – even when it is OBVIOUS they are LYING.
How gullible aRE YOU??????????? I’ve got a bridge in the desert………

IV. Separation of church and state – is one of the oldest, if not THE oldest legal, governmental, constitutional, cultural norms in American history. PERIOD. It dates from Roger Williams in Puritan Massachusetts, 1636.
One of the Founders’ top 4 fears was religion. Their cures: 1776-1800 state constitutions, the Constitution’s Article VI, the First Amendment – all in very explicit language, especially the state constitutions.

This post exists for one reason: a long effort by the FAR RIGHT to obliterate “separation of church and state.” Their plan: LIE about what happened between 1636 and 1800. Below is only part of the MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. You can also subscribe and read the monthly publication of “church & State” by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Oh yes. – one more thing, on the sinister side: look up the “14 characteristics of fascism.” One of them is a close connection between secular government and an official church. The Founders already knew of this – from centuries of religious persecution. The 1776-1800 constitutions are NOT an accident.

The Constitution has no references to gods, goddesses, or divine intervention. Civil War colonel, author, orator, Robert Ingersoll: “They knew to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew..recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought..knew the terrible history of the church as well..”
The Constitution’s only references to religion are EXCLUSIONARY – Article Vi bans a religious test for office; the First Amendment EXCLUDES the state from involving itself in religion, EXCLUDES religion violating people’s rights. The Article VI ban is “the most emphatic statement in the document” [no, shall, ever, any]. Supreme Court Justice Story [1812-1845]: “It had a higher objective: to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.”

George Washington to Virginia Baptist General Committee [5/10/1789]: “no one could be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny.. every man..ought to be protecting in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” [any DOUBT about this????]
1785 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: no government support of religion {“sinful and tyrannical”]; no loss of citizen’s rights for religious beliefs; religious test for office banned.
In the 1787-88 debates on the Constitution: the Federalists NEVER cited the Bible, not once. Madison, 1785 “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments”: “Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.”

Ben Franklin [10/9/1780]: “When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself..it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
Congress [1/19/1829]: religious reasons did not and could not constitutionally motivate no Sunday mail delivery

Daniel Webster [3/4/1850]: warned against mixing religion and politics: “It is in the nature of man..his whole history, that religious disputes are apt to become warm..”

John Leland, Baptist evangelist: “Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let the government protect him in doing so.” [any doubt what this respected man meant, and – when he said it????????]

Maryland legislature passed the “Religious Toleration Act” in 1649, protecting all “Trinitarian Christians.”
William Penn: Pennsylvania was to be a “holy experiment” in religious and civil freedoms.

Madison: “..Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise [and] every expanded prospect.
1774 Massachusetts resolution calling for the Continental Congress to not colonist’s need “for the recovery and establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and religious.”

Sam Adams: “The Rights of the Colonists,” 1772: “As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.” [any doubt what he means???????]

1776 Virginia “Declaration of Rights,” Article XVI: “That religion ..can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience.” [the “reasonable person” can see echos of Amendment I ]
Northwest Ordinance [7/l3/1787]: “No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments.” [note: this PRECEDES the Constitution]

At the Founding time – an established church meant a legal union of government and of religion – such as Roman Catholic in Spain, Presbyterian in Scotland, Lutheran in Sweden, etc. Compulsory attendance at state church, official creed taught in schools, tax support, etc.

Reverend William Tennant [So.Car.], 1777: “Petition of the Dissenters,” requesting the legal disestablishment of the Church of England [Prot. Episcopal Church]. The existence of an established church, Tennant declared, abridged the “free and equal liberty in religious matters..”

Leonard Levy: “The Establishment Clause. Religion and the First Amendment”:
– “To the generation that adopted the First Amendment an establishment had also come to mean..the financial support of religion generally, by public taxation.’
-“Evangelical demands for the separation of church and state, supported principally by Baptists and Presbyterians, ultimately prevailed in Virginia.”
-“Wilson, Randolph, Madison, and Spaight had attended the Constitutional Convention. Their remarks show that Congress was powerless, even in absence of the First Amendment to enact laws that benefited one religion or church in particular or all of them equally and impartially.”
-Madison [6/8/1789] “..proposed a series of amendments..The section on religion: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [any doubt what was intended????]
-August 15, 1789 House discussion of religion, Mr. Madison..believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.” [ would our “reasonable person” see in machinations by the current “religious right” – that the fears of the American populace in1789 have now come to pass – especially by a right-wing stacked “supreme court’???????????]
– “the First Amendment was framed to deny power, not to vest it.”
-“..John Leland..a Baptist preacher..advocated a radical separation of government and religion..and he contended that any sort of establishment of Christianity, including all state establishments, were, “all of them, Anti-Christocracies.”
– “The founding principle..was one subscribed to by Jefferson, Madison, and Christian fundamentalists [in 1774-1802 petitions to the Virginia General Assembly]..that to require a person to support even the religion of his choice denied him his freedom of choice and his right to religious liberty.” [any doubt what was intended?????????]

The same generations that wrote the Constitution and bill of Rights also wrote state constitutions. The following are from Edwin Gaustad’s “Faith of the Founders,” pages l34-l45. Consider: 4 states banned a “religious test for office” [ article Vi]; 8 states banned an active minister from serving in their state government; nearly ALL had language banning “establishment of religion” [First Amendment].
– 1776 Delaware, Article 29: “There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another.” 1777 Georgia, Article KLVI: “All persons whatever shall have the free exercise of their religion..and shall not, unless by consent, support any teacher or teachers except those of their own profession.” [2022 U.S. “supreme court’ apparently ignorant of this??????]. 1776 Maryland, Article XXXIII: “All persons..are equally entitled to protection of their own profession. 1776 North Carolina, Article XXXIV: “..there shall be no establishment of anyone religious church or denomination..in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith..nor be obliged to pay..for the maintenance of any minister or ministry contrary to what he believes right.” [obviously, the Roberts “court” ignorant of this!!!!!!!!!!!!]. 1776 Pa, Declaration of Rights, II: “..all men have unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.”
1778 SoCar., Article XXXVIII: “No person, shall by law, be obliged to pay towards the maintenance and support of a religious worship that he does not freely join in..” 1777 Vermont, Declaration of Rights, III: “..no man ought..be compelled to attend any religious worship..support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of his conscience..”
The above is what the First Amendment means. PERIOD.

To repeat: all the above are only SAMPLESa of MOUNTAINS of constitutions, speeches, letters, petitions – WRITTEN records in black and white. A TOP fear, likely. NUMBER ONE, of the 1770-1800 American people, as an entity, REPEATEDLY said this: THEY FEARED ONE CHURCH OR A COMBINATION OF CHURCHES WOULD SEEK TO IMPOSE UPON THEM RELIGIOUS DOGMA THEY DIDN’T FREELY ACCEPT OR BELIEVE. From Roger Williams to the First Amendment – 150 years of records exists: AMERICANS, OF ALL RELIGIONS, DEMANDED SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. They absolutely did NOT want to be forced to attend a church against their will; they did NOTA want to be forced to subsidize ANY church against their free will; they did NOT want their lives controlled by religious dogma they did NOT believe in. PERIOD.

Repeatedly, “not on any pretense whatsoever” would Americans be forced to accept ANY religious practices that violated “the dictates of their own conscience.” PERIOD.

Incredibly, there are forces in 2022-23 America that say all the above is false – and would have YOU believe none of this, 12636-1800 ever occurred. Fundamentalist churches seek to impose THEIR religion on YOU. They have allies in the current “supreme court,” which is “Weaponizing Religious Freedom” [ Andrew Seidel: “American Crusade” – read this book, in YOUR OWN SELF DEFENSE].
The infamous 2022 “supreme court,” and earlier ones [Trinity, Espinoza] violating YOUR religious rights [and YOUR tax dollars!] are only part of this powerful, well financed, plot. The 6 Republican “justices” major goal is demolishing the “separation of church and state” wall of 200 years precedence.

Stay silent, don’t vote against it. – and they’ll succeed. against EVERYTHING. the Founding generations stood for, believed in, wrote down in many state and federal documents.

The “American Crusaders” that Seidel and others warn YOU about are real, are very serious. – in imposing
THEIR religious dogma on YOU. YOU going to let them do it?????????????

II. The current Republican appointed majority have violated their oaths of office. Each federal judge takes an oath: “..that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich..”
The total PATTERN of “winners” and “losers” during the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court'” tenure ALONE refutes this; their decisions have in fact changed the Constitution as it was known, 1789 – 2005.

***”Whatever the human law may be, neither an individual nor a nation can ever commit the least act of injustice against the obscurest individual without having to pay the penalty for it.” (Henry David Thoreau)

The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” is rated “most business-friendly” court since at least 1945. Corporations have a 70% plus “win” rate. How can this be “equal justice for the poor and rich”? The word “corporation” isn’t in the Constitution. According to “justice” Alito, this means corporations CANNOT have ANY Constitutional rights. How can a “court,” wanting to “do equal right to the poor and rich” be giving victories to entities that have NO rights???

***”The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint..but is conceived and ordered..in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men in white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.” [C. S. Lewis]

The R-M-L-T “supreme court” has given “religious conservatives,” prior to 2022, an 85% “win” record; the gave them l00% [three for three]. “Equal justice”??? And – totally out of line with previous Supreme Courts.

The largest and fastest growing American spiritual/religious groups is “the NONES,” with a reported 34% of adults. There are NO “NONES” on this “court.” The NONES and other major religious groups are “losers” in the current “supreme court.” The current “court” has created a class of ‘SUPER Americans” [the religious right whose rights are paramount].
HOW does this constitute “equal justice under the law”?????????

“Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternative.” [Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator]

***”A judge can’t have any agenda. A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case. And a judge certainly doesn’t have a client.” [Samuel Alito, opening statement, his Senate confirmation hearing, 1/9/2006]
WOW !!!!! Think on this – now in nearly 2023. How many Americans would say THIS accurately describes “justice” Alito’s tenure on the 2006-2020 “supreme. court”?????????????

Chief “justice” John Roberts, at HIS Senate confirmation hearing, famously said his role was to “call balls and strikes” – he would merely be an umpire. “Houston, we have a problem”!!!!!!!!!!!! Umpires DON’T change rules, ignore rules, make up new rules during the game, have a strike zone that is somewhere between home plate and first base!!!!!!!!!!!!
“..two projects which Roberts..was making steady progress..one involved race, the other religion. Roberts long-term plan was to change how the Constitution understood both.” [“Justice On The Brink,” Linda Greenhouse] Didn’t she just say Roberts had an “agenda”? Is Mr. Roberts in BIG trouble with Mr.Alito?

“Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. “It”s not the law of Amy.” [Lisa Mascaro: “Justices’ assurances on’Roe’ now look doubtful”; 12/4/221; Assoc. Press]
“Barrett’s personal religious beliefs matter, but not as much as her pattern of saying that Catholicism should take precedence when it collides with professional responsibilities.” Barrett criticized Justice Brennan’s answer about his Catholicism as, “not a proper response.” [Andrew Seidel, “American Crusade”]. Is Barrett in trouble with Alito also?

“After the hearings, Thomas acknowledged..he had purposely masked aspects of his identity from Congress and the public..during the hearings, Thomas testified..he saw no place for ideology on the high court. “I think..it is important for us..to eliminate agendas, to eliminate ideologies..So I have no agenda.”.. Thomas had proven himself the most political of justices..” Thomas vowed..he intended to spend the next forty-three years..as a Supreme Court justice. It would take that long, he told friends, to get even.” Thomas was also less than honest about his relationship with Anita Hill and about his opinions on abortion. [“Strange Justice,” J.Mayer and J.Abrahamson] Is Thomas in trouble with Alito?

***”Fort a long time I have not said what I believed nor do I ever believe what I say, and if indeed sometimes I do happened to tell the truth, I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find.” [Machiavelli]

Judicial oaths of office require justices to “support and defend the Constitution..” The Preamble states the Constitution was written to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..promote the general Welfare.”
Both the overall PATTERN and many specific cases DOCUMENT beyond any doubt the R-M-L-T “supreme court” has failed to “uphold the Constitution.” Worse, increasingly now, more and more studies show SUBVERSION of the Framers’ intent and the written Constitution, as understood, 1789-2005.

One of America’s oldest, and most sacred, legal principles is “separation of church and state,” dating from Roger Williams in 1636. 1776-1800 state constitutions were ADAMANT, in very explicit language “neither shall any person, on any pretense whatsoever” be compelled to attend or support a church he did not voluntarily wish to do.
The Roberts “court” has SUBVERTED this in MANY ways

In the unprecedented 2008 “Heller” gun decision, its main author, Scalia, acknowledged the original purpose of the Second Amendment when enacted was to protect state militias capable of resisting federal tyranny. Contrary to five supreme Court decisions, especially “Miller’ [1939], in which a unanimous Court said the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [state militias]” All this ignores the 1792 “Militia Acts,” which REQUIRED able-bodied free white males, 18-45, to join militias.
Three Roberts “court” decisions have SUBVERTED the “obvious” purpose, substituting an INVENTED “individual right of self defense” and abetting 400 million guns so NOWHERE in America is safe.

Personal privacy was the intent of Amendments III and IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..shall not be violated.” Numerous Supreme Court opinions – prior to 2005 – supported this. The SACRED right “to be let alone” is THE hallmark of democracy.
Because of personal religious beliefs, the 6 Republican “justices” have opposed one of THER most fundamental human rights: reproductive freedom and bodily integrity. Their infamous 2022 “Dobbs” ruling has produced chaos in American health practices. A “more perfect Union, Justice, domestic Tranquility”?????????????????????????

The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” has SABOTAGED Amendment V’s “due process of law” requirement. “The Roberts Court has issued a string of rulings that make it virtually impossible to escape arbitration agreements..The result has been a rapid expansion of private arbitration as a parallel justice system that has supplanted a role once occupied almost entirely by state and federal courts..public courts more permanently disappear as a real option for many Americans..” [“Uncertain Justice”, Tribe and Matz]
Tribe and Matz also: “The Roberts “court” “has dealt critical legal rules a death of a thousand cuts – leaving many of our rights intact but making them effectively impossible to enforce in any court.”
??????????? How does THIS “support and defend the Constitution”???????????????

Well known and respected law professor, Erwin Chemerinsky, has written an entire book, “Closing the Courthouse Doors How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable.” Case after heartbreaking case DOCUMENT cruelties imposed on ordinary Americans – just like YOU. Read this book. You will be stunned, shocked, angered, incredulous, at how a “court,” “supreme” no less, could do this in the name of YOUR Constitution

***”No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.” [Theodore Roosevelt]

A warning was written in 2008 about what law professor Ronald Dworkin feared he was seeing in early Roberts “court” days, “The Supreme Court Phalanx.” Dworkin concluded with: “Perhaps Roberts will keep his word and try in future years to build a new consensus that more faithfully reflects the Court’s traditions. But I suspect that his Senate testimony was actually a coded script for the continuing subversion of the American Constitution. The worst is yet to come.” Would a “reasonable person” say that professor Dworkin was correct: the worst WAS yet to come?

A similar warning by John Dean, “Broken Government. How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches,” can be found in chapter three: “Third Branch: Toward the Breaking Point” on what could happen under right wing fundamentalists. Pages 166-173 provide chilling predictions – some of which have ALREADY come true.

Could Supreme Court justices, upholding “equal justice for poor and rich alike” and the Constitution have an agenda? The current 6 Republican “justices” denied they did in Senate hearings. Do subsequent records and PATTERNS support their claims to no agenda?
Ian Millhiser”s “The Agenda How A Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America” suggests they DO have an agenda. If this be true, would our “reasonable person” say all 6 have broken their oaths of office?
Does equal justice for ALL Americans allow a 75% corporate “win” rate, or a 90% “win” rate for religious conservatives? Does their oath of office allow this? Does their creation of a “super class” of Americans allow this?
Does rewriting and/or. sabotaging multiple Amendments allow this?
What do. YOU. think???????????

***”If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.” [Justice Brandeis]

Andrew Jackson: “I am of the opinion that a good judiciary lends much to the dignity of a state and the happiness of the people..On the Contrary a bad judiciary involved i. party business is the greatest Curse that can befall a Country.”

I. The Roberts “court” violates the property of “descriptive representation.” This concept dates to classical Athens and their lottery machine, the kleroterion. [Scientific American,; November, 2022; “A More Perfect Algorithm”}. It was designed to give citizens the feeling their assembly was a legitimate body [a LEGITIMATE BODY] that truly represented ALL citizens. The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” most certainly DOES NOT represent America – a realization of such is at the heart of rapidly increasing distrust of this “supreme court.”

The current 6 Republican appointees DO NOT represent America in virtually ANY way: demographically, legally, Constitutionally, Amerficanly. This is well known by documented Republican selection methods for the judiciary.
Republican judicial nominees at ALL levels carefully screened by two groups – themselves NOT representative of America: social conservatives for “correct” religious and other beliefs, Federalist Society network members for “correct” legal and Constitutional beliefs. Republican president, George W. Bush was deemed careless, resulting in a public right-wing rebellion against his first choice. He was forced to substitute Samuel Alito.
There are about l.35 million American lawyers. About 70-75,000 of these belong to the Federalist Society network. Republican judicial nominees are most likely to to be chosen from that Society. The Federalist Society began because “conservative” legal activists believed the American Bar Association was “too liberal” [news to most Americans!!!]

The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” rated, before 2022, THE most “business-friendly” supreme Court since at least 1945. Corporate activists before this “supreme court” prior to 2022 [another win] had a 70% “win” rate
Distinguished law professor and legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, in “Closing the Courthouse Door…How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable<” discusses how, case by case, ordinary Americans have/are losing access to courts. Much of this would have been lawsuits against corporations.

***Justice Black: “Power corrupts, and unrestricted power will tempt Supreme court justices just as history tells us it has tempted other judges. For unfortunately, judges have not been immune to the seductive influences of power, and given absolute or near absolute power, judges may exercise it to bring about changes that are inimical to freedom and good government.”

In June, 2008, 7 of the 9 sitting justices were millionaires. Currently it is known Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch are millionaires. Only the sole Hispanic, Sonia Sotomayor, is said to have been from a “lower class” background.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, [3/27/2019]: “Within the Federalist Society, is an operation funded by dark money and designed to remake the judiciary on behalf of a distinct group of very wealthy anonymous funders..90% of Trump’s appellate judges and both supreme court justices are members..there are three Federalist Societies”.. the third Federalist Society “is the vehicle for powerful interests..to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests.”

All 6 current Republican “justices were raised Roman Catholic. 5 are males. All but one Republican Supreme Court nominee since 1982 were raised Catholic. And this man was later ostracized with the mantra “No more Souters.”
In 2007, law school professor Jeffrey Rosen: “..right now we have a Supreme Court that religiously at least, by no means looks like America.”

***Double Standard Warning: much more in a later post on Article Vi violations. Repubs/right-wingers can select “conservative” religious nominees, even ones with documented hostility to the religious rights of other Americans. BUT – Nobody, including YOU, and especially me, is allowed to question this – as it would be “unfair” or deemed bigoted for any of US to call the Repubs/right wingers on THEIR own bigotry. See the attacks on Senator Feinstein!!!! And then – for perspective, see “Justice on the Brink,” pgs XXII-XXIII for a response by Catholic theologian Cathleen Kavery.!!!!!!

November, 2022, Pew Poll: “Do you think supreme court justices should or should not bring their own religious views into how they decide major cases? U.S. adults: should NOT – 83%
October, 2021 Pew Poll: The federal government should enforce separation of church and state – 54%, should stop enforcing it – 19%
October, 2021: the federal government should never declare any religion official – 69%, declare the U.S. a Christian nation – 15%.

Prior to the notorious 20231-22 “supreme court” session, religious activists [usually “conservative”] had an 85% “win” record with the Roberts “court.” They were 3 for 3 in 2021-22.
PERSPECTIVE!!!: “Every other Supreme Court, religious “rights’ won 44% of cases.”

*****”The Deal”: “Christian nationalist preacher and Trump acolyte Robert Jeffress discussed the case [Roe] on Fox News, explaining “the deal”; “We’re gonna see now what the justices do and if they uphold their part of the deal.” Trump and McConnell put Barrett on the court, and the court finally ends Roe. That was the deal.” [“American Crusade’]

A 9/9/22 article discussing a combined poll revealed “Citizens are united in more ways than you might think” [Steve Corbin], on more than 150 issues, including abortion, gender issues, gun control, immigration, voting, overturing “Citizens United,” rolling back 2017 tax cuts.
The McConnell-Leo-Trump-Roberts “court” has ALREADY issued decisions against what the American public said they wanted done, on what is “justice.”

***”It is a misfortune if a judge reads his conscious or unconscious sympathy with one side of the other prematurely into the law, and forgets that what may seem to him to be first principles are believed by half of his fellow men to be wrong.” [Supreme Court Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr]

Winter, 2022, S.P.L.C. Report, Margaret Huang: “Today, extremists are using our statehouses to incubate shameful copycat laws that seek to control our bodies, whitewash our history in the schools and criminalize LGBTQ+ children. And rather than end discrimination here in the South, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court seem intent on making it the law of the land.”

Within the overall PATTERN of questionable Roberts “court” opinions, can be found the following:
– embarrassing: “Shelby County” – the “court” claimed “the South has changed,” with regard to restricting voting,
especially by Black Americans. Within hours [!!!!!] of this decision, Texas reinstated a restrictive
voting law previously declared unconstitutional; quickly followed by other Confederate states
and Republican dominated legislatures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
– destructive: “Citizens United” – based on a unique “free speech” interpretation, which one legal analyst said amounted
to laundering money through a lobbyist. Statistics show the amount of money spent influencing political
decisions has DOUBLED. The American political system is inundated by floods of money, much of it
“Dark Money” of unknown origins. Ordinary Americans recognize the danger to democracy, and
decisively want “Citizens United” overturned.
– ahistorical: “Dobbs”, infamous and divisive; written in similar terms to infamous “Dred Scott” opinion – claimed
FALSELY abortion was not in American tradition or history. For 2,000 years, most civilizations had
contraception and abortion practiced. English immigrants brought English abortion law. Textbooks
were written with abortion. Midwives and doctors performed American abortions. No state criminalized
abortion until 1821. Alito”s “not in the Constitution ignores Amendments I, III, IV, IX.
– unConstitutional: “Espinoza”: 5 Republican “justices” said Montana taxpayers must subsidize a religious school; also
claimed Montana guilty of anti-Catholic bias, dating from 19th century. “Facts” WRONG!!! Bias by
whom in the decisions??? 5 “justices,” the products of Catholic schools/churches? 1776 era state
constitutions – New Jersey, Article XVIII: “nor shall any person..ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes,
or other rates, for the building or repairing any church..or for the maintenance of any minister..
contrary to what he believes to be right..” This was NOT directed at Catholics.
– laughable: “Hobby Lobby” – Andrew Seidel, “American Crusade,” Chapter 10, DESTROYS the Republican men”s
argument, pointing to “five major failings”: religion trumps reality, Hobby Lobby’s
hypocrisy, when ‘choice’ matters, there was no burden on the Green’s religion, Alito
rewrote the lines. Dissenting justices laid bare the “startling breadth” of the decision.
A state Supreme Court Chief Justice: Hobby Lobby violates corporate law principles.

All the above, a mere sample, illustrate how FAR OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA this “court: is. Equally important, OUT OF TOUCH WITH 1789-2005 AMERICAN LEGAL TRADITION. They claim to be :originalists” – interpreting the Constitution as the Framers wrote it. Leaving aside for now the questionable wisdom of THIS – in case after case – the FACTS show THEY ARE MAKING THIS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In explicit quotes, documents, constitutions, the Founding generations, 1776-1800, OPPOSED much of what the McConnell-Leo-Trump-Roberts “court” has done. Legal papers and books have been written on how their “Originalism” is BIG LIE, a big covering excuse, a JOKE.

As many books and papers have said, the principles behind this “court”s” decisions are often, NOT the Constitution, but are Republican and/or right wing nut political ideas. Many parts of the Constitution and Amendments are in direct OPPOSITION to this “court.” This isn’t rocket science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can research this for the truth – real past American history and legal work. Simply find real, honest, truthful scholarship. WARNING : the forces behind the coup are VERY good at making up junk history and “opinion.” Their “think tanks” are well funded. Their stuff gets into mainstream press. They’re definitely among the internet idiots. This misinfo is a BIG reason we have a divided America.
Go back to the principles of the Declaration and Constitution’s Preamble. Find the 1776 state constitutions. Look at what was discussed in the 1787-89 debates on the Constitution. Find documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Research the Founders’ 4 major fears: corruption, slavery, religion, mobs. See how their fears still exist. What did they mean by a “virtuous republic”? Find out WHY “God,” “corporations” are NOT in the Constitution. Find out WHY the “Bill of Rights” HAD to be added. Find out what Chief Justice John Marshall said about general principles in the Constitution – and WHY the Constitution does NOT tread like a math textbook.
When you have done some of this – THEN – it will become obvious to YOU – WHY the Roberts “court” is Illegitimate, unConstitutional, unAmerican, Destructive, Ahistorical.