The latest Supreme Court rulings dishearten many conservative Americans. Those that usurp the sole power of Congress to make laws like when the Court redefined sex to include sexual orientation or gender identity. Those to halt the President’s actions to redress a known unconstitutional order involving immigration. And those to keep the citizenship question off the census form based on nothing more than the completeness of the agency paperwork justifying the action.

The Supreme Court ruling that the President of the United States cannot nullify and rescind the illegal and unconstitutional executive order of a previous President is, in itself, an unlawful act of the Supreme Court – no matter what their tortured reasoning.

The Supreme Court does not have a “veto” over the actions of an executive branch agency over a lawful and constitutional action. This is not judicial review, but blatant and unwarranted judicial supremacism. Congress and the President must push back against the Supreme Court – to preserve the separation of powers and to reaffirm our Constitution.

There are constitutional limitations on judicial power, and there is a reason why the framers did not grant enforcement powers to the judiciary: to serve as another check-and-balance against the usurpation of authority and tyrannical behavior.

For those who believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court are the permanent law of the land and must be applied nationwide, it is worthwhile to read the treatise, "Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts." 

“Americans’ contemporary understanding of judicial power is inconsistent with the argument put forward by Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist. Although The Federalist affirms the power of judicial review—and hence the role of the judiciary as a check on the other branches—it does not present this as the first or most important function of the courts. Moreover, The Federalist does not support the vast implications of judicial review as including a power to decide the great moral issues of the times and to adjust the Constitution to trends in public opinion. Finally, The Federalist lends no aid to the belief that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of constitutional meaning, unanswerable for its interpretations to any authority but itself.”

Some Americans—proponents of the “living Constitution”—even expect the courts to use the power of judicial review to keep the Constitution in tune with contemporary moral opinions. For them, the meaning of the Constitution is not static but changing—and indeed, changing for the better. In this view, society progresses toward ever higher standards of public enlightenment and justice, and it is the duty of the courts—and particularly of the Supreme Court—to make sure that the Constitution keeps pace with this social progress.

Finally, most Americans believe that the Supreme Court’s judgments on the momentous questions entrusted to it are final—that they cannot, except in the case of formal amendments to the Constitution, be revisited by any authority other than the Court itself. That is, most Americans today believe in judicial supremacy. They think that the Supreme Court is supreme not only over all other American courts, but also over the other branches of the federal government. On this view, the constitutional judgments of the Supreme Court are binding on the presidency and the Congress, which are required by respect for the Court and for the rule of law itself to submit to the Court’s interpretation of our fundamental law.

Although the courts have always held a key place in our constitutional system, this very lofty conception of their authority has largely arisen over the past several decades. The rise of this view can be traced in part to the influence of modern liberalism, which has used the courts as instruments of social and political change and has accordingly had to bolster the authority of the judiciary. Many of the Left’s recent causes—such as the liberalization of abortion law, race-conscious programs of affirmative action, and same-sex marriage, to take just three examples—are highly controversial and probably could not have succeeded on a national scale if their proponents had relied solely on appeals to the ballot box. At the very least, these policies could not have advanced as far and as quickly as they did if they had been left to the voters and their elected representatives.

Some might contend that this Founding vision has been superseded by contemporary expectations that the courts will exercise a more robust power over the other branches of the federal government. Nevertheless, The Federalist’s account of the place of the judiciary deserves reconsideration as being more compatible with the freedom and dignity of the American people—the true sovereign authority in our great republic. It is more consistent with the freedom of the American people because it leaves them more at liberty to govern themselves, to exercise their authority to decide the great questions that confront our country in each generation. This liberty of self-government must, of course, be limited, and The Federalist’s account of the judicial power provides such limits, insofar as it acknowledges the power of courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

To read the entire essay, in full and in context, “Against Judicial Supremacy: The Founders and the Limits on the Courts” can be found here.

Bottom line…

Thus it appears that not only can Congress nullify a particular decision’s application to the entire nation by enacting legislation, but the President of the United States can simply ignore the ruling’s applicability to the nation by refusing to support the decision and reframing the argument on constitutional grounds. Regarding the decision as only binding on the individual parties involved or not accepting the premise that the judicial branch can override the constitutional wishes of the legislative branch or demand that the executive branch enforces their dictates.

The election-time game of rallying the base to get another Supreme Court Justice is a fool’s errand, as we have seen with Chief Justice Roberts and others who may be more concerned with the public image of the Court in the media than they are the welfare of the American people.

President Trump needs to demand that individuals, municipalities, and states follow the law. Taking the case of the law’s benefits and constitutionality directly to the people. And if the courts intervene, ignore them using separation of powers. Instead of allowing a judicial veto on existing legislation, let them rule on separate cases. Ordering the Attorney General to follow the law and ignore the Supreme Court’s demand for veto powers over legal and constitutional matters.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell