Connect with us


Stopping a renegade, pro-abortion Supreme Court

Bryan Fischer



The Supreme Court again today defied the Constitution and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God in its egregiously bad ruling on abortion. Texas had enacted a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and requiring every abortion clinic to meet the same health standards as every other ambulatory surgical clinic.

Both provisions were designed to protect women’s health, which we are always told is the holy grail of the feminist movement. But when the agenda is protecting the practice of pulling unborn babies apart limb from limb, liberals on the court are not about to allow things like common sense, consistency, morality, or the Constitution to get in the way.

Today’s ruling is horrible on every conceivable level, not the least of which is that it turns every abortion clinic into a runaway abattoir for infant sacrifices to the ancient god Molech.

This ruling confirms in grotesque fashion Lincoln’s observation in his second inaugural address that if the Supreme Court is allowed to be the final arbiter on important social questions, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

The ruling is not only horrible from a moral standpoint, it is horrible from a constitutional standpoint. The Founders declared that the right to life is an unalienable right given to human beings by their Creator. Because it is an unalienable right, no man, no agency, no government, and no branch of government has the moral authority to take it away.

Consequently, they wrote, it is the job of government to “secure” such a right, to guarantee it, to protect it, and to punish those who would infringe upon it. The Court not only has failed to secure this foundational, non-negotiable right, it has now become the chief transgressor of this God-given right. May God have mercy on their souls.

But in addition to violating a foundational principle of both morality and justice, the Court is horribly wrong in even taking such a case in the first place. The Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to the Supreme Court to even accept a case like this, which is a legal dispute between the citizens of a state and its own state government.

Article III, Section 2 spells out the issues over which the Supreme Court has been given jurisdiction by “We the People,” and resolving a dispute between a citizen and its own state government is not among them.

The Supreme Court constitutionally has appropriate jurisdiction to accept controversies in which the United States is a party, controversies between states, between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, when citizens are involved in a border dispute over land claimed by two different states, and between a citizen and a foreign government.

But nowhere is the Court ever given authority to adjudicate in a matter of state law. That, under the Founders’ Constitution, is a matter for the judicial system of each state. Since this is a dispute between citizens of Texas and the state of Texas over a matter of state law, it is precisely none of the Supreme Court’s business. As in none, nada, zip, zilch. The 5th Circuit was constitutionally wrong to accept this case in the first place, and it was constitutionally wrong for the Supreme Court to accept it on appeal.

What this case makes clear is that there is now a five-justice majority of morally compromised liberals who believe they have the right to dictate policy to the American people on the most important issues we face. And they will continue to do until somebody stops them.

What can be done? Three constitutional options are available. One, we can wait hundreds of years for the unlikely constellation of a filibuster-proof conservative majority in the Senate, a conservative president fiercely committed to the Constitution and to life, and enough vacancies on the Court to be filled with constitutionalists. While we wait for that to happen, America as we know it will likely vanish from the earth and slide into moral oblivion.

Or we can impeach these out of control justices, all five of them, for violating their oath of office through judicial activism. It’s time to start this conversation again, with our representatives and our senators. Every time we see them, we need to ask them when they will start impeachment proceedings against renegade justices. If it’s doable at all, it will require the election of 67 senators committed to the Constitution and the right to life. By the time we get to that point, America likewise will probably have already descended into an irredeemable abyss.The last time we impeached a member of the Supreme Court was 1804 and the effort failed.

The only other option, an option which has the advantage of offering an immediate antidote, is for governors and state legislatures to take their stand on the Constitution and refuse to submit to an obviously immoral, illegal,and unconstitutional ruling. Wisconsin’s governor and state legislature did this in response to the Dred Scott ruling in 1858, by simply declaring that the Dred Scott decision was null and void in their state.

Abraham Lincoln essentially agreed. Lincoln said he would accept the Court’s ruling as it applied specifically to Scott, but he adamantly refused to accept that it had any precedential value anywhere else in the Union. “This decision,” said Lincoln, “was wanting in any claim to public confidence, and it is not ‘resistance,’ it is not factious, or even disrespectful, to treat it as not having quite established a settled doctrine for the land.”

This last option, the Lincoln-option, may be as unlikely as the first two. But it was morally and constitutionally correct with regard to slavery and, in my view, would be morally and constitutionally correct with regard to the sanctity of human life.

If there is a fourth alternative, somebody needs to come up with it real soon, before it is too late and America is beyond recovery. The clock is ticking.

Bryan Fischer is a senior columnist for Cowger Nation, and the radio host of Focal Point, where he provides expertise on a wide range of public policy topics.

Continue Reading


  1. Trump

    June 27, 2016 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm

    Wah wah wah

  2. David P

    June 29, 2016 11:55 am at 11:55 am

    Impeach the Supreme Court!!! Visit

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Judge rules to remove WWI cross memorial, because it symbolizes Christianity.

Bryan Fischer



A federal appeals court ruled this week that a cross on public land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd, unconstitutional, and impeachable.

The 40-foot tall Bladensburg Cross – which stands on a highway median right outside Washington, D.C. – has stood since 1925 as a memorial to the fallen U.S. soldiers of WWI. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said that the cross, according to AP, “equates to government sponsorship of a particular religion.”

The problem with this ruling is that “government sponsorship” of a cross does not and cannot possibly be a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution as given to us by the Founders. The First Amendment doesn’t forbid government “sponsorship” of religion but only the “establishment” of religion.

The word “Establishment” at the time of the Founding had a precise and technical meaning. It did NOT mean to say nice things about God, or nice things about Christ, or nice things about Christianity. All of those things were absolutely fine with the Founders, who often indulged in those practices themselves with nary a thought that there was something inappropriate about any of it.

No, to “establish” a “religion” meant specifically and exclusively to select one specific Christian denomination, pass a law designating it as the official church of the United States, and compel Americans to support it with their own money.

A cross on public land doesn’t do any of those things. Every Christian denomination provides a central place for the cross in its worship, so putting up a cross doesn’t even favor one Christian denomination over another, let alone designate one of them as America’s church.

The First Amendment was written only to restrain the actions of Congress, as its first words clearly state: “CONGRESS shall make no law…” Only Congress can violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, and the only way Congress can do that is by passing a LAW that designates one Christian denomination as the official church of the nation and ordering people to give money to it.

If Congress doesn’t do that, it can do anything else it wants when it comes to religious expression.

Not only is Congress the only entity that can possibly violate the Establishment clause, it is also the only entity that can even possibly violate the Free Exercise clause. That clause flatly forbids CONGRESS (and by extension, the entire federal government) from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. This restriction applies to every branch of the federal government. The executive branch is not allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion in any way and neither is the judicial branch.

This is critical to understand. If a three-judge panel prohibits the free exercise of religion, which this 4th Circuit panel has clearly done, then it is the COURT that is in violation of the Constitution, not the cross.

The 4th Circuit panel said the memorial “excessively entangles the government in religion” because the cross is the “core symbol of Christianity” and “breaches” the wall separating church and state.
But the First Amendment it flatly forbids the government to interfere at all with the “free exercise” of religion in any way. In other words, when it comes to the public display of the cross, it’s none of the federal government’s business.

It’s not the memorial that “excessively entangles” the government in religion, it’s the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit is unconstitutionally entangling itself in religion by impermissibly interfering with its free exercise.

There is in truth a “wall of separation” between church and state, but the Court has its understanding of that wall exactly backwards. It is a wall, according to Jefferson, that insulates religious expression from the interference of the federal government. Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists that they did not need to worry about the federal government sticking its nose into religious affairs, because the Constitution had erected an impenetrable wall to keep the central government from meddling in matters of religious expression.

Jefferson’s wall, in other words, was designed to protect religious expression from the interference of the state, not to insulate the state or the public from religious expression.

Contrary to popular belief, federal judges do not serve for life. According to the Constitution, they serve ”during good behavior.” When judges exhibit bad behavior, they can and should be removed through impeachment. These judges, by turning the Constitution on its head and prohibiting the very thing – religious liberty – that the Constitution was crafted to protect, have committed an impeachable offense and have disqualified themselves from serving on the federal bench.

Perhaps it’s time to start impeaching these renegade, out of control judges while there are at least some crosses left to save. If we don’t stop activist judges, they won’t rest until every last cross has been removed from public view and reduced to rubble. We must not and cannot allow that to happen.

Continue Reading


Does the Constitution mean what the Supreme Court says it means?

Bryan Fischer



An obviously distressed young female student came into the office of Cornell’s lead Title IX investigator in the fall of 2015. The woman had come in the hopes that Elizabeth McGrath could ease her anguish.

Something terrible had happened to this student that same day, something that had “triggered” an intense emotional reaction inside her; something “oppressive” had happened that left her shaken and in need of urgent help.

What had happened to this poor young woman? Had she been mugged? Had she been assaulted? Had she been threatened? Had she witnessed an act of violence? Had someone flung racist epithets at her? Nope.

She had had the terrifying misfortune of being given a free copy of the United States Constitution. She not only received it but read it, and soon the tremors began. The entire episode left her devastated and trembling.

Said the student, “Is there any way that maybe like we can get rid of it somehow or I can just see that like maybe it will be like therapy for me, like if you can like shred it or something?”

Ms. McGrath eagerly and happily sympathized. “It is a flawed document, she lamented, “and the people who wrote it are certainly flawed individuals in my mind.”

And so without further ado, Ms. McGrath did the only thing any responsible adult in higher education would do, when faced with such a dilemma. She took the nation’s organic legal document, the supreme law of our land, and proceeded to cut it to pieces and leave it in strips in the waste basket.

Enormously relieved to be shuck of such awful baggage, the student left her office with her burden lifted.

This episode, part of an undercover investigative project of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, actually happened, with an investigator playing the part of the student. And worse, the college faculty at Yale, Syracuse, Vassar and Oberlin did the same thing. Every school ran the Constitution through the literary equivalent of a wood chipper.

The schools, of course, did not blame themselves for ripping the Constitution to shreds. Oh no, that was the fault of the “deplorable” conduct of the investigator.

My response to this sad but revealing affair is simple: if you’re talking about shredding the Constitution, Cornell is way late to the party. The Supreme Court has been doing that very thing for over 200 years.

“The weakest of the three departments of power”

The famous British politician William Gladstone, who served as prime minister of England no less than four times over his 60 year career in politics, observed once that “the American Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” Gladstone was talking about the Constitution as it came from the hands of the Founders, not the one that has been twisted and distorted  and wrenched out of shape by renegade and out-of-control judges. He would weep today to see what a hyperactive judiciary has done to this masterpiece.

Our Constitution has been shredded and mangled by judicial tyrants wearing black robes, who have left this once magnificent document in tatters and made it virtually unrecognizable. Only fragile strips of parchment remain from what once was – and still can be – the most remarkable political document in the history of human civilization.

The Constitution was intended to serve as the pillar on which our entire system of government rests. And yet federal judges, swinging their gavels like sledgehammers, have reduced much of it to rubble.

The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself a power the Founders never intended it to have, a power not delegated to the Court anywhere in the Constitution. The Court was designed to be the least powerful branch of government, its jurisdiction and authority strictly circumscribed by clear and unambiguous boundaries.

“At the establishment of our constitutions,” wrote Jefferson, “the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.”

Joseph Story concurred (Commentaries, Sec 1595): “The judiciary is, beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power.”

The Court was considered to possess so little power that It met in a closet in its early days, and then bounced around from room to room in the Capitol until it eventually landed in chambers abandoned by the Senate. It did not even have its own building until 1934.

It convened for less than two weeks a year over its first decade, and then only for six to eight weeks a year for the next half century.

Joseph Story, author of the magisterial Commentaries on the Constitution agreed with Jefferson about the impotence of the Court as the Founders designed it:

The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy, or injure them. The executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature, not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules, by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword, or the purse; no direction either of the strength, or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force, nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm, for the efficacious exercise even of this faculty.” (Sec. 1594)

The Court was deliberately designed  by the Founders to be so weak that it could not compel anyone to do anything. It could issue an opinion, but if the Executive branch looked at its ruling, decided it was flatly unconstitutional, and refused to enforce such an unjust decree, the Court would be left utterly helpless. It’s about time in our own day for the Executive to do its job and stop mindlessly enforcing edicts it knows are wrong.

As Story added (Sec. 1582), “It may, in the last place, be observed, that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is, in reality, a phantom … from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.”

Thus the Court, under the Founders’ Constitution, would be entirely dependent upon the goodwill of the American people since it has no authority to enforce its opinions by force. None. As long as the Court behaved honorably, there was no reason for the American people to reject its opinions.

But in our day, when the Court is completely out of control and acts as a law unto itself, it now owes its influence purely to the obsequious acquiescence of the American people to its tyrannical edicts. If the people of a given state and their elected representatives decided to ignore a plainly unconstitutional opinion from the Court, there’s not a thing the Court can do about it. It has no police force at its disposal which it can summon to punish miscreants.

“The important constitutional check … the power of instituting impeachments”

The power of impeachment was designed by the Founders to be a real and present check on the hubris of activist judges:

“And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check, which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger, that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.” (Story, Sec 1582)

The contemporary problem, quite obviously, is that Congress has dispossessed itself of this power, through its own weakness and meek capitulation to the bullying edicts of the justices. That which was designed to be the ultimate, in fact the only necessary, check on renegade justices has been discarded and left useless and unemployed while the Court struts unimpeded throughout the land, making a wreck of virtually everything it touches. The power of impeachment is utterly worthless unless it is used, like an eminently necessary tool left to rust in the bottom of a tool box.

“A new rule for future cases”

Remarkably, there is another tool given to Congress to rein in a renegade Supreme Court, which is rarely if ever talked about. That is that Congress can enact a law, in reference to an egregiously bad Supreme Court decision, that compels a different result the next time a similar case comes before it. Now it cannot reverse a bad Court decision, but it can make sure the same mistake is not repeated.

This is how Story expresses it (Sec. 1581):

“It is not true, in the second place, that the parliament of Great Britain, or the legislatures of the particular states, can rectify the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts, in any other sense, than might be done by a future legislature of the United States. The theory, neither of the British nor the state constitutions, authorizes the revisal of a judicial sentence by a legislative act. Nor is there any thing in the proposed constitution, more than in either of them, by which it is forbidden. In the former, as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle. A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination, once made, in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases. This is the principle, and it applies, in all its consequences, exactly in the same manner and extent to the state governments, as to the national government, now under consideration. Not the least difference can be pointed out in any view of the subject.”

To give but one example. Sixteen couples went before the Supreme Court to gain recognition for their sodomy-based marriages. The Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, opined that they could. So that decision is settled, and cannot be reversed. Fine. Those sixteen couples get their marriage licenses.

But Congress has the liberty, under the Founders’ Constitution, to enact legislation that directs future courts to refuse marital recognition to the next same-sex couple that darkens their doors. It’s long past time for them to do it.

The Supreme Court, not the supreme branch of government

The Constitution was intended by the Framers to strictly limit the size, reach and power of the federal government. But the Court, by imposing its own will over the will of the Constitution itself, has transmogrified the central government into a freedom-destroying behemoth which endangers every liberty which the Constitution was intended to protect.

The Court has appointed itself the supreme branch of government rather than simply one of three co-equal branches. But as Gov. Mike Huckabee has often pointed out, it is the supreme court, not the supreme branch of government. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “The Supreme Court – isn’t.”

By claiming a supreme authority it is not given anywhere in the Constitution, the Court now exercises dictatorial authority over the other two branches of the central government and over the American people as a whole. It now rides the beast of the federal government like the great harlot of Revelation 17.

It is time for us to pull this rider off the beast, and, with regard to the beast itself, it is time for “We the People” once again, as Thomas Jefferson put it, to “bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The Constitution means what the Founders intended it to mean

How do we do this?  I read a story one time about an American tourist who was lost in the English countryside. He asked a local farmer, “How do I get to London?” The farmer thought for a moment and said “Well, if I was going to London, I wouldn’t start from here.”

And so to find our way home, we must begin at the only place it is possible to begin, and that is by understanding the Constitution as it was crafted by the Founders. One of the cardinal principles of interpreting any piece of literature, whether it’s the Bible, the Constitution, or Shakespeare, or Calvin and Hobbes, is that a text means exactly what its author (or authors) intended it to mean. No more and no less.

Long-time literary critic and Yale and University of Virginia professor E.D. Hirsch correctly explained in his book Validity in Interpretation, no document is in fact a “living” document in the sense that its meaning changes over time. Any document means exactly what its author intended it to mean at the time it was written. While interpretations of it can change, and our understanding of its significance may change, its meaning never does. Its actual meaning is fixed for all time by the intent of the author. His words means just what he intended them to mean.

Accurate interpretation of any text, in other words, is an objective affair, not a subjective one, and requires us to understand the culture of the writer’s day and a working understanding of the knowledge that was possessed both by the author and his intended audience.

To give a simple example. If I write the phrase “I’m going to look into that trunk,” that phrase has  a range of possible meanings, depending upon whether I am speaking as a traveler, an automobile mechanic, a telephone repairman, or a squirrel. But the word “trunk” in my expression means exactly what I intend it to mean. If I am writing about the trunk of my car, then that is what the word means in my document. I emphatically do not intend for it to refer to a suitcase, a bundle of telephone lines, or a tree. Authorial intent is the controlling factor.

When I see a brochure advertising a trip to the Holy Land led by “Ancient Near Eastern Scholars,” I do not understand the authors to mean that these tour guides are senile and decrepit, so you better come on our tour before they keel over and die.

When I see a sign that says “Slow – Children at Play,” by “slow” I know that the authors are referring to the speed of my vehicle and not the clumsiness or the intelligence of the kids in the neighborhood. When I see a sign that says, “Sorry – Pumps closed,” I understand “sorry” to refer to an apology and not the condition of the gas pumps.

Interpreting the Constitution just like interpreting the Bible

In simple point of fact, a document either means what its author intended it to mean, or it can mean anything your fevered imagination can invent. This is the exact principle that governs the interpretation of the Bible. In fact, interpreting the Constitution is just like interpreting the Bible. Both documents mean what their authors intended them to mean, period.

For instance, when the Bible says that Jesus physically died on the cross and three days later rose physically from the dead, that’s exactly what it means. When it says he ate fish in the presence of the disciples after his resurrection, and the disciples both saw and touched the wounds in his wrists and in his side after they had seen him die, that’s exactly what it means. Now you may not believe what the authors say, or you may disagree with what they say, or you may think they imagined the whole thing, but intellectual honesty will require you to admit that’s what they said, and that’s what they intended to say.

We’ve probably all heard interpretations of the Scripture that were quite fanciful and even preposterous. For instance, contemporary Bible commentators have twisted themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to maintain that the Scriptures approve of homosexuality, but if we are honest with ourselves we all know that they’re reaching and coming up with interpretations that make hash out of the plain biblical text. After all, there is nothing ambiguous about the verse, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). You may wish the Scriptures didn’t teach that homosexuality is a sin but it is foolish and intellectually dishonest to pretend it doesn’t.

I once read about a 19th century cultural observer who watched preachers grapple with Darwin’s newly introduced theory of evolution. As they wrestled with reconciling evolution and Scripture, they turned themselves inside out trying to make the two fit together. Noted the critic, they had a “marvelous gift of explaining things away.” That is, they could take the uncomfortable and counter-cultural things in Scripture, difficult because of modern sensibilities, and maneuver around them through imaginative and fanciful interpretations and reinterpretations of the biblical text. They could make the Bible say what they wanted it to say rather than what God wanted it to say.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the Constitution means exactly what the Founders intended it to mean, no more and no less. “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments,” wrote Story, “is to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties“ (Sec 400).

In Section 451, Story elaborated on that principle:

“In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or judicial research.”

When the Constitution uses the phrase “establishment of religion,” it means exactly what the Founders intended it to mean.  When it refers to the “free exercise” of religion, it means exactly what the Founders intended it to mean. When it refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” it means exactly what the Founders intended it to mean. When the Constitution uses the word “commerce,” it means exactly what the Founders intended it to mean. We’ll examine each of these in detail as we proceed.

The plain meaning of a plain provision in the Constitution can be so mangled that rulings can restrain what it it was intended to protect and permit what it was intended to restrain. For instance, a badly adulterated understanding of the term “establishment” in the First Amendment has resulted in an astonishing and alarming repression of the “free exercise” of religion, which is guaranteed in the same amendment. As Story said, “No construction of a given power is to be allowed, which plainly defeats, or impairs its avowed objects” (Sec. 428). If the object of the First Amendment is to protect the free exercise of religion, and the Court’s opinions instead severely restrict religious liberty, then the Court is flatly wrong.

Story warned quite directly against enlarging the power of the central government beyond its constitutional limits just because politicians don’t like its restraints. “On the other hand, a rule of equal importance is, not to enlarge the construction of a given power beyond the fair scope of its terms, merely because the restriction is inconvenient, impolitic, or even mischievous” (Sec 426). For instance, the power to regulate “commerce” has been extended out of all proportion to the meaning the word had at the time simply because power-hungry big-government types wanted control over every aspect of the American economy.

Antonin Scalia, who was one of the great originalists on the Court, described the proper theory of constitutional interpretation this way: “The theory of originalism … gives it (the Constitution) the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated … I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.” Exactly.

Continue Reading


GUT-WRENCHING: Federal judge says Constitution is irrelevant

Bryan Fischer



Sitting federal judge Richard Posner says there is absolutely no point in judges studying the Constitution. I arf you not. Here’s the direct quote: “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation…the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”

It’s already true that law students don’t actually study the Constitution itself in law school – they study nothing but court rulings and never grapple directly with the meaning of the text itself. They don’t even read the Federalist Papers anymore. The Federalist Papers were written in 1788 by Founders James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay to help New Yorkers understand the Constitution which had just been drafted and was before the voters for ratification.

I once heard a lawyer with a leading First Amendment law firm describe a speech he had given to students at one of the nation’s premier law schools. He asked the class how many of them had taken a course on the Constitution during law school. Every hand went up. He then asked them how many of them, in their Constitution class, had read the Federalist Papers, the best source for understanding the Constitution as the Founders intended it to be understood. Not one single hand went up.

Immediately after the lecture, a student came up and said, “Instead of asking us whether we’d read the Federalist Papers in our class on the Constitution, you should have asked whether we’d read the Constitution in our class on the Constitution. You’d have gotten the same result.”

Posner, mind you, is a sitting federal judge who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but now informs us he thinks the whole thing is irrelevant. Posner is not telling us anything we did not know about the judiciary’s contempt for the Constitution – he’s simply removing all doubt.

And speaking of judicial ignorance of the Constitution, a federal judge in Mississippi, Carlton Reeves, has shredded what is left of religious freedom and the First Amendment by striking down a conscience-protection provision in Mississippi state law that would protect county clerks like Kim Davis from being thrown in an 8×10 cell for exercising their right to the free exercise of religion.

What this means, bottom line, is that it is no longer the KKK which is squashing civil rights in the South. It’s now renegade, out of control federal judges. It’s Judge Reeves who symbolically is standing in the door of the county clerk’s office with a bullhorn, a firehose, and police dogs, daring Mississippians to exercise their constitutional rights, under penalty of being thrown in jail cells formerly occupied by civil rights workers in the ‘60s.

Bonus bytes

  • A wall for me but not for thee: more liberal hypocrisy on parade. Facebook founder and open-borders advocate Mark Zuckerberg builds ANOTHER big wall around one of his homes. He thinks a wall to keep bad guys off his property is peachy, but a wall to keep bad guys out of America is horrible.
  • Spanish Inquisition, Green-style: Democrats actually want us prosecuted for believing the science about warming. You know, the actual scientific data from NASA satellites which says there has been no global warming since 1978. Now we know why judges don’t want to study the Constitution. It has that pesky provision about freedom of speech and the press.
  • A renowned climate “scientist,” Michael Mann, says we don’t actually need any, you know, science. Actual data, he says, is “increasingly unnecessary.” We can make it up as we go along. So a liberal federal judge says the Constitution is irrelevant, and now a liberal scientist says science is irrelevant. Welcome to the Dark Ages.
Continue Reading

Most Popular