Supreme Injustice

I figured I’d weigh in on the Samuel Alito nomination…

To be honest, I think the jury’s still out regarding this nomination. It seemed at the beginning that this was a great choice: a conservative with experience as a judge extending beyond 5 years, a paper trail, the works. Certainly, compared to Bush’s last two stinkers, this pick looked golden! Everybody was gearing up for a fight and this certainly looked like this was the nominee that Christians could finally get behind. But as more information has filtered through the media (and not just the liberal media), my enthusiasm for Samuel Alito has cooled considerably. Despite his “proven” conservative credentials, there are facts coming out now that lead me to believe that this man does not have the guts to follow his God-given conscience when it comes to ruling on the hot-button issues of today that divide this country. It doesn’t matter to me that you’re opposed by Planned Parenthood or NARAL and their cronies. They’ll oppose nearly everyone nominated for the Supreme Court who hasn’t personally sawn the head off of an unborn child. They are of the culture of death and that is how they judge the world. So, if that is our standard as to the soundness of a nominee credentials, then we are in serious trouble.

The reason why my support for Alito has waned is the same reason why I was against John Roberts being nominated (Scalia should have been chief justice!): the nearly god-like reverence given to past court decisions (known in legalese as “precedents”) and the deference given to precedent cases when deciding case before them now. For example, when the Senate was questioning Roberts and trying to get him to commit to a position on Roe v. Wade, he cleverly tried to sidestep the issue by saying (and I’m paraphrasing here) that Roe was already established law and that he would “respect” established law. Bull! Roe was a bad decision and an immoral decision based on lies and a love of death, not the people or the Constitution. Why must we treat every decision handed down from the Supreme Court as if it were a decree from the Pope to the Roman church? The plain fact is that the Pope is not infallible and neither is the Supreme Court. They are human and as such not all-knowing or all-wise and they will make bad judgments. It is reasonable, no it is demanded, that judges, even all the way to the Supreme Court, sit in judgment of themselves from time to time and examine themselves to see if they really have been faithful to the principles of the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold (not change or add to or subtract from). In particular, there are 4 specific cases that I am thinking of that the Supreme Court would do well to re-visit and honestly ask themselves whether they didn’t make a mistake in judging (I seriously doubt they will since most of these were decided by sitting judges):

1. Roe v. Wade - Since when does the Constitution give anyone the right to kill another, especially because they are inconvenienced by their presence? The only 2 instances I see where killing is justified (or even mandated) are: 1. self-defense or defending someone else from attack and 2. capital punishment (decreed by God to all of humanity in Genesis 9:6 in the case of ALL murders). In addition, there are multitudes of books out there that document that this case was fraudulent. I think it speaks volumes that the very person in whose favor this case was decided, Norma McCarvey (aka Jane Roe), personally testified that this case was based on lies and even TRIED HERSELF TO PETITION THE COURT TO RECONSIDER THIS ABOMINABLE DECISION!!!

2. Lawrence v. Texas - Again, another abomination. This is probably the crowning example of the Court’s hard work to trample the rights of the states given by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Despite what left-wingers say, this case in a few short years has opened the Pandora’s box of normalization of sexual deviancy and homosexual/polygamous/bestial/whatever marriages that all people with half a brain knew that it would! Not only that, but it has been alleged and backed up with reams of facts by journalist-turned-judge Janice Law that this whole case was a set-up from the beginning!!! How can we possibly trust the Court to do their job (interpreting the law) when they willing allow themselves to be deceived just to push America into “enlightenment”? I was particularly sickened by the flauntingly open way in which the two women justices used this case to expose themselves for a practice which they have probably been doing all along: consulting foreign law in order to rule on U.S. law. They outed THEMSELVES to these acts of high treason. Their only guide is supposed to be OUR Constitution, not the laws of other nations who obviously do not share our same values. This is intellectual and moral snobbery of the worst kind.

3. Kelo v. New London - This case boggles the mind. I think it was in this case where I decided that the Supreme Court had lost it’s collective mind (well, 5 justices, at least). They didn’t just mis-interpret the Constitution on this one, they re-wrote it. Eminent domain abuses had already been occurring regularly in this country, especially under the guise of the fraud that is the Endangered Species Act (along with the EPA), but now it is institutionalized and officially sanctioned, thanks to the Supreme Court!

4. Fields v. Palmdale School District - This one’s not actually a Supreme Court case, but it soon will be. This decision was handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Liberals which basically said that parents don’t have the exclusive right to teach their children about sex or to control what they learn, when they learn it, or even to be merely NOTIFIED that the public schools will be discussing sex! As a father of 2 daughters and knowing what I know about public schools and their utter depravity, this ruling is beyond frightening and enraging. This is the reason I will not allow my children to go to public school. I don’t know how the Court will decide on this one, but if they follow their same pattern, it will 5-4 against the American people and this case will go down as another “precedent”. Not content to take our land, sacrifice our unborn to Moloch, or force abominations on us, now they will take our children and force them through their Communist re-education camps.

I think any sane person can begin to see the reason for my unease at supporting a nominee who would uphold the status quo. We already got one from Bush, we don’t need another. Jon Dougherty made an interesting point not long ago about the nomination process. He talked about the hoopla surrounding nominating liberal vs. conservative judges. Jon asserted that a “conservative” court could trample people’s rights just as well as any liberal court. His opinion was that we did not need people beholden to one political philosophy or another, but people who could read, understand and correctly apply the Constitution. We need “Constitutionalist” judges. The Constitution was written by wise and far-seeing Christian men back in the 1700’s. I think all Christians would rest easy in supporting a nominee who would just follow the game plan laid out by those fine men of old.