Supreme Court Usurps Role Of Congress

FILE - This April 28, 2015, artist rendering shows Tennessee Associate Solicitor General Joseph Walen arguing before the Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage in Washington. Justices, from left are, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito Jr., and Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court’s four liberal justices have been in the majority in virtually all the year’s biggest cases. They have found a fifth vote to form a majority in Kennedy and more surprisingly, Roberts. homas was even their partner in one 5-4 ruling.(AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren, File)Washington DC (Storch Report) — The Supreme Court is much like a referee on a football field.  Some of the players they referee can pass laws, and others can enforce laws.  The boundaries the Supremes are governed by are set by the Constitution and it is their job to say when government officials step out-of-bounds.

However, who oversees the Supreme Court when they step out-of-bounds as they have on more than one occasion in recent times?

It is not their job to make the law, or modify the law by changing words in the law to interpret the author’s intent; it is theirs under the constitution to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

The Supreme Court politicized itself on three different occasions recently, two occasions with ObamaCare, and now one occasion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

And to say Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is flummoxed in his decision-making process from one day to the next would be a gross understatement.

Roberts justly earned the criticism he has received from the right, but even the left are confused by his judgment having twice helped to save sections of ObamaCare, once by literally rewriting the law which was written by the president as a penalty and then to reinterpret it as tax to make it legal.  And then last Thursday in a 5-4 dissent on the gay marriage ruling he accused his liberal colleagues of doing exactly what he did, overstepping their bounds with the same sex marriage ruling.

Many thought it sounded like two different people.  He said in his dissent . . . “but for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.   Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens — through the democratic process — to adopt their view.  That ends today.”

He went on to say, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”

Anthony Scalia wrote, “What really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”  He went on to say about the Affordable Care Act, “We should just start calling this law SCOTUScare,” and declaring in the gay marriage ruling, “words no longer have meaning”  and a “democracy is being destroyed.”

It is clear that the court’s liberal justices have prevailed in almost every important case in recent months and as a result overstepped their authority, politicized the system and unlike the football analogy the people can’t challenge the call.  There is no referee to oversee the referees.

Which points to a flaw in the system, the Supremes should have term limits, not lifetime appointments, especially in light of such apparent cognitive dissonance.




This entry was posted in Political Analysis and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.