….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court. There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them. 1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts. Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government. 2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher. One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means. Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language. 3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t. No elected official has to follow their order. These understood that: “Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.” Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004). And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.