Wednesday, July 13, 2016

U.S. Judge Says Constitution Has No Value

®™©

“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”  Edmund Burke
U.S. Judge Says Constitution Has No Value
An opinion held by at least 50 percent of the American judiciary.

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’
Published July 13, 2016

Comment about the title: Golly! It’s no wonder we are going down the toilet…
A growing pandemic is raging in the ‘American Judicial System’ that is more dangerous than any disease.  It could wipe out freedom in the entire country as we have come to know it.   As you read this dissertation, understand that the subject matter is rapidly becoming the bases for law in America.  It is a frightening prospect my friend. 


Attorney, Legal expert and Historian Daniel Horowitz who has appeared as a regular legal commentator on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, has blasted Judge Richard Posner, pictured at right, for his hate America jaw-dropping statement that he doesn't think judges should spend "one second" He later apologized for saying it, but he still lectures at the University of Chicago, spewing out his vile Communist anti-American propaganda.
studying the Constitution of the United States.

Note: It is highly doubtful that Judge Posner and other judges like him have spent more than a second studying the U.S. Constitution anyway.

According to Horowitz this is an opinion held by at least 50 percent of American judges. As I said, a frightening American pandemic.  And you can thank your Communist Ivy covered universities for that.

"It's like being a member of the Armed Forces and supporting ISIS instead of America," thundered Horowitz. "A judge swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet Judge Posner said that, “the oath is now applied to the precedent from the Supreme Court, not the Constitution as written." The sad part of that statement is that because of the tyranny of the courts and the trashing of Constitutional law, he just may be right, if only that was just his assessment.

In a recent contribution at the left-wing publication Slate, Posner, chief judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, argued judges should not spend any of their time studying the original intent of the Constitution.  Showing his true red colors of Communism.
He stated:
"I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.  In short, let's not let the dead bury the living."

Posner is not just a fringe figure. According to a study compiled by Fred Shapiro in The Journal of Legal Studies, Posner is unfortunately the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century. Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of constitutional law at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania Law School and the great-great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, called him "arguably America's greatest living judge" and "uniformly sensible and frequently brilliant."

Obviously another Ivy League hate America lunatic. It’s just my opinion!

Posner has established a reputation for his contemptuous tone toward the supreme law of the land. At the 2015 Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium, Posner stated he didn't really care what the Constitution actually said.

According to Prof. Josh Blackman, Posner stated: "I'm not particularly interested in the 18th century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don't believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today. Because the people in the 18th century could not foresee any of the problems of the 21st century."  As I said earlier it is obvious to me, being one who has studied Constitutional History that he has no knowledge or understanding of the Constitution, or more importantly, its history.  The truth is the constitutional architects had incredible, if not supernatural insight, into human behavior, law, history, and philosophy.  Not to mention their faith in God.   

Posner even suggested certain provisions of the Constitution which are unambiguous, such as age limits for certain offices, should simply be thrown out (and not use the cumbersome outdated constitutional legal amendment process)  by the Supreme Court. And Posner reportedly stated the oath judges take to uphold the Constitution is meaningless.  Showing his true colors, it is his understanding that the court can simply throw out any law they feel is unambiguous, or for any reason.  This is the mind of a bully autocratic tyrant my friend.

According to Blackman, Posner said: "It's funny to talk about the oath judges take to uphold the Constitution since the Supreme Court has transformed the Constitution in its decisions. The oath is not really to the original Constitution, or to the Constitution as amended. It is to some body of law created by the Supreme Court. You can forget about the oath. That is not of significance."  It is interesting that again this part of his communist tirade bears some truth, but only as a result of the criminal actions of the Supreme Court in the past.  “The oath is not really to the original Constitution…” because it has been so perverted marginalized by the courts and judges like Posner.

In a more recent interview, Posner also dismissed the Constitution as an
"old document," that is "not going to tell you how to deal with new problems."  Typical of the progressive philosophy of a living ConstitutionIt is my opinion that this is what is at the very core of most of the important issues in this country. And that is the fact that judges generally have no understanding of the U.S. Constitution much less have any respect for it.  And I guess he is not aware of the purposely arduous Amendment process that incidentally has also been ignored and abused.

Despite his role as a judge, Posner is also well known for freely giving his viewpoints on public policy, national politics and other subjects. He told the left wing National Public Radio in 2012 he had become "less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy."  Well again a truism but it’s unknown what Posner considers as “goofy,” and why.

Posner has also allowed his contentious tone to creep into his judicial opinions. In 2014, Posner referred to the state of Indiana's efforts to protect traditional marriage as "a tradition of hate and savage discrimination."  I wonder if he’s………no, not necessarily, he is probably just a Fabian useful-idiot.

Daniel Horowitz pictured at right, is the author of the upcoming book "Stolen Sovereignty:
How To Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America," he warned conservatives not to dismiss the popularity of Posner's anti-Constitutional views among federal judges.   "These are not just the views of a respected intellectual appointed by a Republican," Horowitz cautioned. "These are clearly the views of every Democrat appointee and at least one third of the GOP appointees to some degree. This is why there is a permanent imbalance on the courts. You can never win if at least 50 percent of the judges believe in the exact opposite principles of the Constitution."

In the same article in the Slate publication, Posner insulted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, sneering, "I regard the posthumous encomia for Scalia as absurd," dismissing tributes paid by Scalia's liberal colleagues including Justice Elena Kagan and Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow.

In response to criticism at this smear of this deceased example of a true American, Posner didn't back down.

Posner was understandably a frequent critic of Scalia and the late justice's philosophy of "originalism," with Posner authoring a blistering review of
Scalia's book "Reading Law" in the leftist magazine The New Republic.

Horowitz argues Americans cannot afford to give any power to judges like Posner who will ignore what the Constitution plainly says.

"There is really nothing conservatives can do under the existing system," Horowitz claims. "Party politics have voided out the utility of impeachment. This is why conservatives will never win the judiciary game and must, instead, take the ball away from them."

And Horowitz charges judges like Posner have already destroyed their own legitimacy by unmooring themselves from the Constitution and openly proclaiming their intention to make the law whatever they want.

"They can't have it both ways," Horowitz said. "They can't fashion themselves as the final arbiter of all social and political questions, and at the same time, render those decisions using something other than the Constitution as it was originally ratified as their guidepost."

Ultimately, Horowitz says it is up to Republicans in Congress to take action and end the rule of unelected judges.

"Congress must begin stripping them of the power to adjudicate broadly consequential political issues," he suggested.
"Congress must go back to the original plan that was adopted at the constitutional convention when the judiciary would not serve as a council of revision but as a means to redress individual grievances under the laws duly passed by the people's representatives."

THE BOTTOM LINE: So! Here it is, the reason that I decided to write this article in the first place.  Not only was it Posner’s contempt for America and everything it is, but his disrespect for the Constitution and Scalia, the only one that was left on the Supreme Court that understood the importance of the history behind the Constitution.  Nobody escapes my wrath that dises Antonin Scalia.  Scalia was, in my opinion, one of the last true American Constitutionalists who understood its philosophy and the importance of "originalism."

 Until now it seemed to me that I was the only one in the universe who really understood that the judicial system had taken on the facade of God.  Ruling instead of judging, changing and making law instead if stating an opinion that Congress needs to address.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the power of the courts to rule, change existing law, or the outright creation of law. 

The Constitution addresses this issue of the separation of powers by the three branches of government, the courts including the U.S. Supreme Court have assumed ‘all’ the power of a tyrant to rule as they see fit retching out their own anti-American Communist ideology and mandating their form of judicial autocracy.  

When is Congress going to reign in the constitutional sovereign power that belongs to the elected legislature, and has systematically been stolen by the courts? 

Answer!  When – “We The People,” tell our representatives to do their job, as Horowitz said, “… take the ball away from them."  Meaning the Courts.
You can do that right here my friend.  So, do your job of exercising ‘your’ power before you too’ lose it.  

Remember:  “We the People” are the United States Government. Something we are also incrementally giving up…

Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials. 

1 comment:

Blogger said...

I have just installed iStripper, and now I can watch the sexiest virtual strippers on my taskbar.