Time to start over with a new judicial system - letter by John Shellenberger

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

The Left loves democracy. Except when they don't like the results. Then, the Left loves the courts. Except when they don't like the results. Then, they love executive power. Except when they don't like the results. 

The Left are functional totalitarians. They will insist on their agenda and worldview by any means possible. They will force people to conform via law, court order, executive order, protest, blockade, boycott, violence, or shame, as needed to advance their agenda. Astonishingly, even when they are in the minority they assert that majority is obstructionist!  

So here we have a letter from a Leftist who doesn't like some recent Supreme court rulings. His solution? A decidedly undemocratic call to impeach the justices. Read on:

-----------------------------------

The Supreme Court has to go! Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to add more justices when the court was usurping political power and this president would be justified in doing the same. (Because it's all about the agenda. Rather than a system of checks and balances, the author wants power tilted toward the presidency because, again, of the AGENDA. Anything is justified in the name of the agenda.

The author appeals to Roosevelt, but it was Roosevelt who was overstepping his constitutional restraints by rejecting the court's decisions. The court repeatedly struck down Roosevelt's unconstitutional actions, which the author characterizes as the court usuring power! Ironic.)

The Citizens United ruling was based on the absurd notion that corporations are persons. (It was not. This is the persistent narrative of the Left, repeated ad absurdum until is becomes unassailable "fact." But the Citizens decision did no such thing. The questions presented to the Supreme court were:

1. Whether challenges to the disclosure requirements imposed on "electioneering communications" by McCain-Feingold were resolved by the court challenge to McCain-Feingold (McConnell v. FEC).
2. Whether McCain-Feingold's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering communications, because such communications are protected "political speech" and not regulable “campaign speech” per Buckley v. Valeo.
3. Whether the law requires a clear plea for action to vote for or against a candidate.4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as an advertisement, or whether the movie is not subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.

So, the actual issue boils down to whether or not a film that was critical of a political candidate, but did not advocate a particular candidate, amounts to a political contribution. The court ruled that it did not.) 

The recent Boston abortion clinic ruling was religiously motivated and failed to protect the safety and rights of needy patrons of these clinics. (The author simply asserts something he cannot know.)

Now, the Hobby Lobby ruling fails to consider the rights of women who may need medical coverage to protect their health and their lives. (Here's another issue which is rapidly developing a folklore. As is usual, none of the hysterical flame-throwing rhetoric is true. Here's a good analysis.)

This last ruling opens the door to all kinds of mischief. What of the corporate family who rejects vaccinations on religious grounds? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.) 

What of the Christian Science owners who refuse to provide medical coverage in its entirety because they allege it is contrary to the tenets of their religion? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.)

What if corporate owners who contend that the world will end shortly and thus refuse to provide retirement coverage for their employees? (Irrelevant, because Hobby Lobby was narrowly decided.

But let's press the issue. The crucial, and under-discussed issue is, do businesses serve the purposes of the owners, or are they an extension of the government's social agenda? On what basis should private enterprise be forced to do anything as they pursue their private, lawful self-interest?)

What of the owners who refuse to pay minimum wage because Jesus admonishes people to live a life of poverty? (This is astoundingly ignorant. I can't even begin to address the many levels of idiocy contained in this statement.) 

What of those who maintain they can retain people as slaves since the concubine of Abraham was a slave? (Exodus 21:16: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”) 

The list goes on of reasons for almost anything that can be held to have a religious basis. In the final analysis, religion trumps everything, no matter how egregious the tenets are held to be. (So here we have it. Because people must first serve government and its interests, those who have religious convictions apparently must pass judicial review to ascertain the legitimacy of their religion. And because there are extreme examples of misuse of religion [as if there were no examples of extreme misuse of any other philosophies.], we must now worry about any sort of obscure or reprehensible practice manifesting. 

Rather than guard against the overreach of power by government in telling private entities what is acceptable religion, the author worries that people might possibly choose to express their religion in ways that offend him. Truly odd.)  

These justices of the Supreme Court should be impeached for letting their political and religious views dominate their regard for the Constitution (Which has never happened until now...)

– they should be defrocked and run out of town. (I'd sure like to know what part of the Constitution the author is referring to.) 

Let’s start over with a new set of justices, people who will be judicious and fair in their rulings (That is, people who agree with the author.) 

— and will not be writing new constitutional law. (Which has never happened until now...)

John Shellenberger Bozeman