SCOTUS Politicization

Don’t Start The Party Just Yet: There’s More Than Meets The Eye With SCOTUS Rulings

Imagine if a contractor, in order to obtain a contract, had to provide their customer the funds that would be used to pay them, and then in order to get paid had to meet certain onerous conditions to receive the payment they had provided in the first place.  It is difficult to see how this situation differs greatly from a situation where the government uses funds obtained from taxpayers to provide services to the taxpayer, but where such payment was subject to conditions the government might impose, including a condition of exclusivity.

SCOTUS Justices’ COVID Ignorance Illustrates Why They Should Stay In Their Lane

The proper role of the courts is, first, to rule on individual cases, with their decisions binding on a particular case’s litigants but no one else. Second and as Ambassador Alan Keyes put it to me on the phone years ago, their function is to act as an “alarm bell,” saying at times to the nation, “Beware! We think this law is unconstitutional; you need to take a look at it.” If the people are convinced, it’s then their job to elect officials who will effect the necessary change.

To Dems, Supreme Court Is Radical

There are six justices that Republican Presidents appointed with the hope of a conservative view of the Constitution. This plan has not always played out with Chief Justice Roberts often siding with the Liberal three justices. I find it interesting that Pappas refers to thinking not aligned with him as radical. So much for bipartisan thinking. It does not exist in today’s government.

The Supreme Court’s Day of Reckoning is Coming

Ruling that last minute ad-hoc election changes were unconstitutional would have been relatively straightforward — but the court didn’t.  Hearing the election fraud evidence and adjudicating the result would have created a political crap-storm — but it would have been the right thing to do.