Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution defines the “judicial Power” of the Supreme Court. Reason and the Supreme Court itself make it clear that the definition is unclear.
In its 1803 Opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court made the lack of clarity clear:
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
In the same 1803 Opinion, the Supreme Court asked and answered the question of who gets to clarify the lack of clarity:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
Imagine that! The Supreme Court figured out that the Supreme Court alone gets to say what the law is. Is the entire rest of our nation a bunch of numbskulls?
The qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice are underwhelming. They do not have to be legal scholars, lawyers, or trained in the law. They can have been convicted of perjury and bribery. They can have an IQ below 75. They can declare personal bias against our President, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. They can declare the Supreme Court to be a biased institution, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor did in Wolf v. Cook County, Illinois. They can be married to political activists, as Clarence Thomas is. They can engage in public political debate, as John Roberts does.
What if legal scholars and historians could say what the law is? Would we be worse off? Would corporations be people? Would money be speech?
Everyone agrees that the Supreme Court is not a judicial entity, but, rather, is a political entity. The proof is indisputable. Major-Party Presidential candidates argue over what political bias a potential Supreme Court nominee must have, what political litmus test must be satisfied.
If the Supreme Court were a body of smart, wise, ethical, apolitical constitutionalists, how could it have Decided that “Separate But Equal” is constitutional in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson), and is unconstitutional in 1955 (Brown v. Board of Education)? How could it have Decided that a Black from a “slave State” has no more constitutional rights than a soiled diaper (Scott v. Sandford)?
So, here we are in 2021. The Supreme Court now tells us that Reynolds v. Sims has gone the way of Plessy v. Ferguson. In other words, our Constitution no longer says that We the People are guaranteed “One Person, One Vote”.
The results of our Presidential elections in 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020 were contested.
The 2000 election results were litigated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, and selected our President. Order was preserved.
The 2004 and 2016 election results were formally contested by Senators and Members of Congress. Congress analyze the evidence, and selected our President. Order was preserved.
The 2020 election results were litigated to the Supreme Court. However, this time the Supreme Court refused to analyze the evidence. Order was not preserved. A mob invaded our Capitol. 25,000 of our military, armed with assault rifles, were deployed to our Capital.
On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court explained why it refused to analyze the evidence: “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.” Really? Our Constitution really says that Texas does not have standing to protect the integrity of our Presidential elections, when alleged voter fraud takes place outside Texas?
In its 1965 Decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court interpreted our Constitution to say that it includes an unstated right of privacy under an unstated “penumbra” in our Constitution. That’s because, in 1965, the Supreme Court’s priority was We the People. Clearly, the Supreme Court’s priority changed between 1965 and 2020. Clearly, We the People lost our priority to politics.
The most troubling tragedy is that the Supreme Court refuses to protect our precious right to vote. It steadfastly protects the alleged constitutional right of political candidates and their supporters to spend unlimited amounts of money to spread lies and false promises for the purpose of defrauding us out of our precious right to vote. In 2008, I voted for Presidential candidate Obama, because he promised to “regain America’s moral stature in the world” by closing Guantanamo by Executive Order.
Presidential candidates of both major Parties, politicians and pundits of all stripes, regularly denigrate the Supreme Court. They know it’s not apolitical. On March 4, 2020, armed with the threat of “Court Packing”, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer led a mob to the Supreme Court and demanded that the Justices Rule as he wanted: “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” The politically-savvy Schumer made it clear — everyone knows the Supreme Court is not apolitical.
The Supreme Court adamantly insists that our Constitution protects the right of the mega-rich, mega-powerful to manipulate our precious right to vote. Is the Supreme Court a Supreme Protector of our Constitution, or is it a Supreme Disgrace?