The Supreme Court Legalizes Injustice

Rather than being a “living document,” our Constitution is a written rock, a steady immovable document for all to rely on.  Given this basis, how is it that we now recognize privacy rights that never existed, we continue our objection to this governmental takeover of America’s medical industry and yesterday, listened as the “fundamental right” of marriage was redefined.

Give me a break!  Our Constitution still retains the nomenclature of being “the law of the land!” One would think Supreme Court justices would be familiar with such legal roots.  However, irrespective of their judicial acumen, five black robes managed such a blatant Constitutional blunder that questioning their integrity and future judicial worthiness is now a possibility.  At this juncture, America’s judicial system faces a serious threat.

Discounting the 2008 election as a mere good intentioned formality, 2012 etched out a serious crevice within our individual judgments.  The aftershocks from his re-election now echo with Constitutional indifference; not so much from the halls of Congress or even the usual White House mumblings, but most effectively from within our halls of Justice.  Not only do they routinely reinterpret previous figments of judicial creativity, they’ve transitioned into a redefining arm of our legislative branch.

Our Constitution opens with, “We the people.”  In Hamilton’s #16 of the Federalist Papers, he notes that the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution.”  So, given this weighty responsibility, of which freedom comes loaded with, we must dispatch our present sense of futility and grumbling for the anticipation of what lies ahead.  This current assault, although now headquartered in our Judiciary, has been evolving for decades.

Trending: We Need Term Limits: How “Career Politicians” Took Over Congress, and its Troubling Consequences

supreme courtThe disbelief of re-election stunned as much as defied and tarnished our American standard.  However, this being said, what we are left with is two enormous laws, which the vast majority of citizens were against.  The senior of the two has received a constant and vehement rebuke which inherently contradicts this latest judicial keeping.  Since our law designates that it truly is “we the people,” then something has dreadfully gone astray.  Especially so when six robes defy America’s true sovereigns while at the same time, encroaching upon another branch of government.

Illegal laws have but one companion; additional illegalities with an adherence to that side of the ledger.  However, in a free, moral and religious society, our backlash is sustained simply by its moral righteousness.  After many decades, public rebuke now surpasses majority figures against the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional Roe v. Wade finding.

Although never addressed after all these years, and especially not through its proper perspective, this constant reverberation validates its immoral and criminal ground.  As such, legal barriers or buffer zones have been required around “abortion centers” for the welfare of those involved.

This past week, two monumental decisions have boldly gone where our Constitution lacks any voice or authority.  Both Supreme Court findings, one responding to a five year long public opposition, while the other has already required a defensive strategy which victimized another inalienable birthright.

It seems that a daily newspaper in Harrisburg Pennsylvania announced that censorship, instead of a “free press,” is once again preferred and useful.  The editorial editor of The Patriot-News declared that his editorial page would “no longer accept, nor will it print, op-e

ds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.”

This recent reshaping of marriage has now been determined by the market place to be illegal, as visualized through the lens of that Harrisburg daily. In this case, the Court violated a societal mainstay which is as old as time; the marriage of one man to one woman.

In this Judeo-Christian country, five black robes defied God and one of our Bible’s most sacred trusts.  Why was it that the subject of marriage was never addressed by our Forefathers?  No need, since marriage was as natural a composite as each morning’s sunrise.  That is until five immoral justices breached their condition of “good behavior” with such an outlandish finding.

The word “inalienable” or “unalienable” is a hands off word that sets apart our birthrights based upon their source.  In our original Founding document, our Declaration, it is written that we are “endowed” by our “Creator with certain inalienable rights.”  In other words, no act or judgment by mortal man can affect, alter or remove such birthrights.  Apparently, with some promotions to our Supreme bench, there exists a few miscreants who fail to comprehend or worse, refuse to invoke the most fundamental of American tenets, of which sets America apart from all previous and current governments.

The subject of marriage is so engrained within our societal and religious fabric that to even hold court over its being is blasphemy.  When reaching the apex of audacity, verdict rendering, the entire charade becomes just that.

As a result, Texas Governor Abbot declared officially that in part, “Texans of all faiths must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that their religious freedom is beyond the reach of government.”  He further stated that, “With these obligations in mind, I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

The Supremes didn’t just overreach, theirs was an act of judicial tyranny.  The Texas Governor’s defense against such an outlaw bench is correct in that the First Amendment to our Constitution owns both seniority and the same sacred inalienability as do all of the first Ten Amendments of our Bill of Rights.

By any valued judgment, what these five justices produced was antithetical to the very core of Americanism.  They know it and so do we.  Hopefully, more Governors will follow Abbot’s refusal to obey since our Founding demands that “it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government.”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend