Organized thought of the day*

Regarding the “packing” of courts (with judges sympathetic to one’s cause), which has been in the news recently; our U.S. constitution, very specifically and strenuously, demands “court packing”. It demands that ALL judges, justices, politicians and law enforcement be committed to the American Founding Principles. It is designed specifically to be as“Unfair” as possible.

When we’re talking about “court packing” then, we must be very specific. Are we talking about packing the courts with people unwaveringly dedicated to liberty, or are we talking about packing courts with people who are open to the idea of coercion?

Historically, this country was already “done in” in that regard by the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration. By 1945 the destruction of America was generally embraced. By 1970 there was so little America left that hardly anyone remembered the difference. So this has been a long time coming, which is what Progressivism is all about.

*Poking fun at Joe’s recurring “Random thought of the day” post title (if one may have random thoughts, surely one might, potentially, on occasion, have organized ones).


2 thoughts on “Organized thought of the day*

  1. It would certainly be nice to get a Justice or two that took the Constitution for what it is: a straightforward piece of plain English that means exactly what it says. Even the best of them don’t come anywhere close to that, and most of them have never seen a Constitutional principle they aren’t happy to trample all over.
    Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt are certainly early offenders, with FDR completing the destruction. But interestingly enough, with rare exceptions, people seem very hesitant to point to mention Lincoln’s contribution.

    • If you spend much time in any courtroom, you soon realize that “precedent” trumps principles most of the time. I can think of several reasons for this, but mostly I think it’s a form of cowardice, or CYA., simply taking the easy route. That may come from the fact that so many judges are career judges. They’ll tend to act in self defense. Don’t want to rock the boat, want to have “standing” and so on. Rather than being stalwart guardians of liberty, come what may, then, they end up being de facto lackeys to the Progressive system. They’ll sit there on the bench and make some of the most twisted rationalizations imaginable (quite insane at times) and back it up with “precedent”, and so in their minds they’ve done a good, thoughtful and thorough job for which they’re safe from being accused of “activism”.

      My point of course was that the constitutional Oath **requires activism** (in defense of liberty, and human rights in general, at the expense of other interests).

      Judge Judy is pretty good in that she indeed does bring principles into the courtroom, but that’s not a criminal court. It doesn’t deal with laws that are often contradictory or unconstitutional– Small civil suits are a whole different deal.

Comments are closed.