Question for Judge Gorsuch – Can the Supreme Court make law? What can’t courts do – if they are all powerful and their rulings may not be questioned?

Home  »  Constitution  »  Question for Judge Gorsuch – Can the Supreme Court make law?
Print This Post Print This Post
Mar 20, 2017 No Comments ›› admin

By Lynn Woolley

Neil Gorsuch is an originalist, who will likely replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. But before he does, the Senate Judiciary Committee will grill him. They will ask stupid questions like,

“What is your view on abortion?”

Judge Gorsuch will answer as all have before him – that he has no litmus test. The questions that SHOULD be asked are those related to the Constitution, and the separation of powers that used to be a carefully guarded principle of American government.

The specific question: 

In this Feb. 14, 2017 file photo, Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

“Can the Supreme Court make law?”

…and its tangential question – can any federal court make law — should be the theme of the hearings. When Roe v. Wade became “the law of the land” in 1972, the High Court grabbed a power not delegated to it by the Framers. And now, federal judges have assumed powers related to national security.

This has got to stop.

We are living in age of judicial tyranny. In Roe v. Wade, the case should have been sent back to the states to allow them to rewrite their laws on abortion in accordance with the decision of the Supremes. Instead, the High Court’s ruling simply was accepted as law.

Now, a federal judge in Seattle (James Robart), and another one in Hawaii (Derrick Watson) , have grabbed a power that is specifically delegated to the President of the United States both by Constitution and statute.

Consider this.

If a federal judge in any district court can negate a presidential order related to the safety and security of Americans – as these two judge have done – what can’t they do? Can they place stays on the deployment of troops? Can they decide how many warheads are in our nuclear arsenal? Can they rule that surgically altered men are really women? Can they proclaim that Global Warming is destroying civilization and command the taxpayers to fork over copious amounts of money to combat it?

Video: 1/31/17 — President Donald Trump presents his nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Neil Gorsuch

What can’t they do – if they are all powerful and their rulings may not be questioned?

This brings us back to the concept of originalism. This is the notion (now considered antiquated to the Left) that the Framers of the Constitution had specific reasons for the limitations on government that they inserted in the Constitution – and they meant what they said.

The late Justice Scalia was a famous originalist. He believed the Constitution was a stone, cold dead document. That’s means no one – liberals included – should be allowed to jack around with its meaning.

Video: Justice Antonin Scalia: The US Constitution is ‘Dead’

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg views the Constitution as a “living, evolving” document that changes with the times –and with evolving social mores. This is kind of like the way President Obama evolved on homosexuality – beginning his presidency with a stated belief that men were meant to marry only women, but ending it with the belief that men marrying men is some kind of God-given right.

It would be obvious to state – but I will anyway – that if same-sex marriage was an abomination when Obama took office, it was the same when he left. The liberal viewpoint is always to push the envelope – and so Obama pushed it.

No originalism – no Constitution.

It seems to me that a living Constitution is a worthless one. But liberals don’t think that way. They bring up the issue of equality. But it seems to me that Constitution covered blacks in its protections; the law just didn’t enforce it. Kind of like Obama failed to enforce immigration laws or the DOMA law. Black people got short shrift at the time, but the country came to believe that all people should be so protected. And it came to be.

So equality for black people as a race IS originalist thought. Being black, however, is a normal condition. Being homosexual or transgender is not, and yet liberals want no such distinction. Trust me – if we can write the meaning of the Constitution based on popular opinion – we have the tyranny of the mob and the country is worse off for it.

Video: 2/13/16 — Dinesh D’Souza to Judge Jeanine Pirro on Scalia’s Shocking Death & Its Implications

Under originalist doctrine, we have separation of powers.

The Founding Fathers made every conceivable effort to make it hard for a tyrant to take over as dictator of America. Consider that none of our major offices were to be filled in the exact same manner:

• The president was to be elected by an Electoral College chosen by the states.
• The U.S. Senate was to be chosen by the state legislatures. (Changed by the 17th Amendment.) Senators were supposed to represent the states.
• The U.S. House of Representatives was to be directly elected by the people. Representatives were supposed to represent the people in their districts.
• Members of the federal judiciary were to be nominated by the president with consent of the Senate.

The same line of thinking led the Framers to set up three co-equal branches of government:

The executive branch was set up to provide us with a Commander-In-Chief and be the chief law enforcement branch.
The legislative branch (the House and the Senate) was to debate laws and pass them with the consent of the president – but with the power to override a veto if it came to that.
The judicial branch was to resolve certain disputes (such as between states) and to ensure that laws did not run afoul of the Constitution.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court assumed powers of “judicial review.” Fine – but as of today, federal courts have assumed powers of making law. Federal judges, under the Constitution, cannot tell President Trump that he cannot implement an order that he has the exclusive power to make. But they can – and they have. This is dangerous.

A federal judge in Hawaii has no business meddling in affairs involving national security. But neither does the Supreme Court have any business making a ruling on abortion that effectively become a law. But such is the state of separation of powers under today’s non-originalist, left-wing spin on the Constitution. If it doesn’t stop, the courts will run everything and the other two branches will exist only to implement what federal judges mandate.

The only question of real importance in the Gorsuch hearings is: Can the Supreme Court make law? Let’s hope it occurs to some senator to ask.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: