Lawyers and the Lawless Law of the Land

The Supreme Court once again is the headline of the news. Judge Ginsburg died leaving eight judges for the nine-seat court. The so-called media, as usual, portrays SCOTUS as the greatest authority since God gave his law to Moses. But, now, the worship of man’s law begins again in the news.

The drainage of all political conversation regarding SCOTUS seems to flow to an outlet drain of something called “checks and balances.”

This expression is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, but it seems, today, as revered as “all men are created equal.” This second comment coming from first “The Virginia Declaration of Rights” then borrowed by Jefferson for the July 4th “Declaration of Independence” for the 13 independent and sovereign colonial governments: the most famous secession document ever written but singularly and certainly no founding document–for the record.

The comparison comment is simply to indicate how richly, idiotic, comments become as revered by politicians as Rasputin’s blather was to the Russian Czar. And how rich is the irony that the SCOTUS has become, in the minds of liberals and conservative wannabes, as authoritative as the old Soviet Politburo?

If there are “checks and balances” where are they? Today’s constitutionally illiterate congress, judiciary, and bureaucrats refer to decisions by the SCOTUS as “the law of the land.” If that is true who checks them? They can’t have it both ways: Either SCOTUS is the law of the land or they can be checked. They cannot be both.

Secession is called treason. Nullification is called treason. Next, it must be assumed by many that Article 5 of the constitution is treason. But then, that is how SCOTUS was “checked” in 1795 with the 11th Amendment.

And the history of this amendment teaches that the people were shocked when they realized the SCOTUS thought it had the authority to override a “state’s right”—Georgia, in this case. Immediately, as if panic had set in as to the monster (SCOTUS), they had created, the states essentially added an addition to The Bill of Rights—the aforesaid 11th amendment.

It was James Madison himself, lauded historically and contemporaneously as “The Father of the Constitution,” who vetoed the notion that SCOTUS was the ultimate law. He stated as much in one of American history’s most respected documents, “The Virginia Resolutions.” And it was Madison who used the phrase in one of the Federalist Papers: “checks and balances.”

But, now we are in the news with a major political battle for the next selection to fill out the nine seats: The one vacated by the passing of Judge Ginsburg.

All sides except real conservatives try to make arguments for filling or not filling the vacancy immediately. Clearly, some want a Trump appointee, and others want to wait for a Harris/Biden /Democrat cabal appointee. Yes, that’s what I meant. Biden may or may not suffer from dementia, medically, but as a liberal, political dementia speaks for itself.  

It probably won’t matter in the end. Amy Coney Barrett, I’m sure, is liking her chops in glee at what is referred to as a lifetime (it’s not—it’s for a period of good behavior) appointment and once appointed to do what she wants. After all, she is one-ninth of “the law of the land.” And they neither will be checked nor balanced.

No need to point out the fraudulent nature of guys like John Roberts. He is not alone in saying one thing while believing another. History is rife with these great “legal minds,” changing their minds.

What must be remembered is that these guys and gals are not the great “legal minds” portrayed by the bureaucrats and media. The law isn’t some esoteric compilation of petty, added-together rules and regulations stapled and glued together as if is a magnificent nonlinear mathematical differential equation.

The law is a simple deciphering for local communities of some basic law. And any complication is no more impenetrable than its basic foundation: The Ten Commandments. The only people who need an interpretation of these are the animals allegedly “protesting” in Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, etc.  

In the long run, it isn’t going to make any difference. A large part of what is described as “the country” (once a union of countries) doesn’t care about law, order, being checked, or being balanced.

They only care about taking what belongs to others. And they will not be checked because they are unbalanced.

The SCOTUS is nothing but a historically inept collection of appointed bureaucrats pretending to know the law even better than the Scribes and Pharisees. And just as honestly.

So why is SCOTUS in the news? There ain’t much new. 

About Paul H. Yarbrough

I was born and reared in Mississippi, lived in both Louisiana and Texas (past 40 years). My wonderful wife of 43 years who recently passed away was from Louisiana. I have spent most of my business career in the oil business. I took up writing as a hobby 7 or 8 years ago and love to write about the South. I have just finished a third novel. I also believe in the South and its true beliefs. More from Paul H. Yarbrough

You might also enjoy these articles...