Supreme Court – Enemy of Freedom
Judicial Activism
The US Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving gun
bans. The interesting thing about Supreme Court cases is that one side will say
they screwed up, no matter what. The court is accused by one side of abusing
their power, or legislating from the bench and praised by the other side for
upholding either the constitution or the spirit of the constitution. It is
ridiculous.
For some reason, all these many years after the formation of
the Supreme Court, people still don’t seem to understand that the court is a
legislative branch of the government. Quit shaking your head and admit it, you
know it’s true, at least you should.
At the beginning of chapter two of, “The American Supreme
Court” by Robert G. McCloskey, he states…
“Nevertheless it is perfectly apparent to the detached
observer that the Court’s decisions do tend to fall into patterns that reflect
current judicial views of what ought to be done; and that these views, though
heavily influenced by the nature of the forum that issues them, are nonetheless
policy decisions. The very question of what subjects should claim judicial
attention, involved and avowed or implicit decision about what is most
important in the American polity at any given time, for the Court has always
enjoyed some leeway in controlling its own jurisdictions…”
By determining if something the
government has done is “constitutional” or not, the Supreme Court is in effect
lending legal credence to the actions of the Legislative and Executive
branches. By failing to review every action by the other two branches, they
are, by proxy, enabling any type of abuses the Congress or President wish to
lay on the people. The makeup of the Supreme Court is of paramount importance
to political parties in the US for this very reason. It lends credibility to
their positions for years to come. They
are expected (and act accordingly) to be political activists. That is their
job.
And the Winner is…
Who benefits from Supreme Court
decisions? My belief is that no matter which way they choose to decide an
issue, the government is the sole beneficiary of their actions.
If they decide in favor of the
people, they leave the case open to be regulated further by the Congress or
state governments. They help Congress “close the loopholes” in their
legislation. They have continually bowed to the superiority of the federal
government over both the States and the individual. They have granted, at the
very least through inaction, the other two branches of the federal government
to gather more power.
And why shouldn’t they? They are
part of the government. This near reverence the people hold for the Court seems
to ignore the simple fact that they are nothing more than a branch of the
government. At what point would they rule against themselves maintaining that
position? They have a vested interest in a powerful federal government. They
have a vested interest in maintaining “the union” at all cost. They have a
vested interest that is known as self preservation. Unlike the other two
branches of the federal government that have at least a cursory interest in
getting elected, the Supreme Court doesn’t have that same “liability”, they are
set for life and their position is entirely dependant on them doing only a few
things.
What They Do
First, they have to avoid
controversial issues that may tend to stir up the populace at inopportune
times. If you look over rulings during times of social and political upheaval,
they have worked only to bow to the most powerful force. This is especially
dangerous in a climate were the government is becoming more and more powerful
with each bill or executive order.
Second, they have to stay
relatively healthy. Sounds crazy, but since they are in for life, living has
its benefits.
Third and probably most important,
they must work to maintain the dominance of the federal government. Issues that
would clearly put them in conflict with the “will of the people” they pass on.
Conclusion
I have seen a lot of people writing
about the upcoming case of Parker v. District of Columbia. The gun advocates
are already claiming victory for the most part. After all, the Second Amendment
is pretty clear in granting rights to THE PEOPLE. But I would advise not to
count your chickens before they hatch. Even if they find in Parker’s favor they
will leave the door open for legislation. They will likely close all loopholes
or chances to argue it further. This is not an issue that is likely to come up
in the Supreme Court again in a very long time, if ever. This will be the final
word on the deal. With a simmering undercurrent of disgust with our federal
government, I don’t foresee a ruling that would arm the citizens. I hope I am
wrong, but I doubt it.
The No Name Group Project