In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation. As far back as 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).
Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
1. "Writing in the Harvard Law Review in 1977, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr., exhorted state judges to embrace activist interpretations of the law. .... Brennan is rightly seen as one of the fathers of the living Constitution, under which judges continually reinterpret the nations fundamental law in light of conditions existing in contemporary society.
Brennan's Revenge by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2014
2. Compare Brennan's idea that judges know what is best, no matter what the law says, to Chief Justice Robert's at this nomination:
"WASHINGTON Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an obligation to the Constitution and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.
If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guys going to win in court before me, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guys going to win. Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News
The is the only correct view of one properly called a judge.
3. " State courts have construed what is traditionally known as general welfare language in state constitutions as another source of new economic rights.... The [NJ] court held that housing and shelter at government expense are necessary to the general welfareeven though the words housing and shelter never appear in the state constitution.... stretching the meaning of words so cavalierly, state courts and legal scholars never say who will actually pay for these new material rights.
a. Nor do the legal writings and court decisions ever question whether these entitlements establish perverse incentives. They ignore, for instance, how the vast expansion of welfare, starting in the late 1960s, was followed by the emergence of an ingrained, intergenerational poverty, as children born to welfare families became adults heading welfare households.
4. Constraining state judicial activism wont be easy. Reform must begin in law schools themselves, where faculties are overwhelmingly liberal and friendly to an activist judiciary (as long as its liberal in its activism). .... surveyed the nations top law schools and found that only 13 percent of professors identified as Republicans.
5. State-level reform should focus on judicial selection, a process that varies greatly from state to state. Judicial elections, once among the sleepiest precincts of electoral politics, have gotten far more contentious, thanks mainly to the efforts of special interests, especially trial lawyers, to elect liberal, plaintiff-friendly judges.
6. Voters also need to understand the electoral implications in states where governors select judges. Too often, conservative and moderate governors have named judges to their highest courts who wind up being activists. ....Chris Christie made reform of the New Jersey Supreme Courtperhaps the most activist and costly court in the nationa central theme in his successful 2009 gubernatorial campaign, and he has said that restraining the courts activism may be the most important component of turning around the Garden State.
7. Without new constraints on state judicial activism, voters can expect more fiscal pain. ....the needs of an aging population and workforce will strain budgets for years to come.... state courts helped lay the groundwork for it with decades of judicial spending mandates that left governors and legislatures in some states with little fiscal room to maneuver. Unless state judges return to a more cautious approach to constitutional language, states and municipalities will find it ever harder to devise sound budgets."
Brennan's Revenge by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2014
Dr. Thomas Sowell, in Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact. Politicians, and this includes activist judages, do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
Such judges are self-centered viper in our midst.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation. As far back as 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).
Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism
1. "Writing in the Harvard Law Review in 1977, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr., exhorted state judges to embrace activist interpretations of the law. .... Brennan is rightly seen as one of the fathers of the living Constitution, under which judges continually reinterpret the nations fundamental law in light of conditions existing in contemporary society.
Brennan's Revenge by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2014
2. Compare Brennan's idea that judges know what is best, no matter what the law says, to Chief Justice Robert's at this nomination:
"WASHINGTON Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an obligation to the Constitution and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.
If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guys going to win in court before me, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guys going to win. Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News
The is the only correct view of one properly called a judge.
3. " State courts have construed what is traditionally known as general welfare language in state constitutions as another source of new economic rights.... The [NJ] court held that housing and shelter at government expense are necessary to the general welfareeven though the words housing and shelter never appear in the state constitution.... stretching the meaning of words so cavalierly, state courts and legal scholars never say who will actually pay for these new material rights.
a. Nor do the legal writings and court decisions ever question whether these entitlements establish perverse incentives. They ignore, for instance, how the vast expansion of welfare, starting in the late 1960s, was followed by the emergence of an ingrained, intergenerational poverty, as children born to welfare families became adults heading welfare households.
4. Constraining state judicial activism wont be easy. Reform must begin in law schools themselves, where faculties are overwhelmingly liberal and friendly to an activist judiciary (as long as its liberal in its activism). .... surveyed the nations top law schools and found that only 13 percent of professors identified as Republicans.
5. State-level reform should focus on judicial selection, a process that varies greatly from state to state. Judicial elections, once among the sleepiest precincts of electoral politics, have gotten far more contentious, thanks mainly to the efforts of special interests, especially trial lawyers, to elect liberal, plaintiff-friendly judges.
6. Voters also need to understand the electoral implications in states where governors select judges. Too often, conservative and moderate governors have named judges to their highest courts who wind up being activists. ....Chris Christie made reform of the New Jersey Supreme Courtperhaps the most activist and costly court in the nationa central theme in his successful 2009 gubernatorial campaign, and he has said that restraining the courts activism may be the most important component of turning around the Garden State.
7. Without new constraints on state judicial activism, voters can expect more fiscal pain. ....the needs of an aging population and workforce will strain budgets for years to come.... state courts helped lay the groundwork for it with decades of judicial spending mandates that left governors and legislatures in some states with little fiscal room to maneuver. Unless state judges return to a more cautious approach to constitutional language, states and municipalities will find it ever harder to devise sound budgets."
Brennan's Revenge by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2014
Dr. Thomas Sowell, in Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact. Politicians, and this includes activist judages, do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.
Such judges are self-centered viper in our midst.
