Judiciary: To Contest or to Make Complicit?

As if a demonstration of our democracy’s ability to test the extremes of its durability Jerry Nadler, House Judiciary Chairman, called a presser for the introduction of the Judiciary Act of 2021. Accompanied by cosponsors, friends and colleagues the most notable being Rep. Hank Johnson, Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Mondaire Jones Chairman Nadler unleashed the most coherent display of systemic ignorance; unfortunate of course given that they are the gate keepers, at least at the moment, of the Nation’s Judicial Order.

Those who witnessed the address were front and center to the insult, for those who missed the event consider yourself relieved as I’ll not dither over the matter further and move directly to key issues and points of order required to address critical components of the Supreme Court’s construct ceremoniously debased by Mr. Nadler and his associates effort. For the record, and in complete opposition to the proclamation of Nadler et al, kindly note the following:

  1. The notion often referenced as “co-equal”, particularly when making reference to the U.S. Governments three Branches of government, is not only misused and misunderstood it is patently inaccurate. The only explanation, for its use, is most likely related to its effectiveness in creating a foot hold for making ravenously inaccurate claims solely for political advantage all the while laying siege to the Nation’s Foundational structure.
  2.  The Judicial Branch maintains, it is true, “co-equal” proportion as to standing within and among the triumvirate of this Nation’s three Branches however it must be fully understood that it holds no expression, co-equal or otherwise, as to Executive or Legislative authority. Each of the three branches have specific duties, responsibilities and functions unto themselves, a.k.a., “Separation of Powers”, which by design has no or was ever intended to have equity, with any other Branch individually or collectively, whatsoever. They do, however, have a very important function within and about the order of government and that is to act as a system of “checks and balances”. As I recall, these two distinctions of divided government are first found in the writings of Charles de Secondat, most frequently referred to as Montesquieu.
  3. The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) is not or was it ever awarded a decree to act or to assert a democratic function; it is strictly the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution as to scope and intent the strict nature of which is the reason why it is the highest court in the land and also why it must only be the Court itself who makes the determination of those matters that are within the purview of The Court.
  4. The Supreme Court, expanding on the previous point, is intended to hear only those cases that breach the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution and thus resolve any legal issue occurring under the umbrella of the underlying cause of action from that point on; thus explains the function of “precedence” or “stare decisis.” To make the claim that the Court must be expanded to handle the growing number of cases, presumably those emanating from the Lower Courts or, one might assume, due to the growing number of Illegal Aliens entering the Country thru the defenseless southern border, is patently dishonest and substantive proof of malicious ignorance. To endorse or understand the dubious nature of this argument is to explain it this way: If the Court was to hold to Nadler et al’s pernicious claims then their logic would then (also) require the Court to hear the case of every women wanting to kill their unborn child.
  5. Without the absolute independence of a Judicial Order there is not capacity for Justice; this is an absolute, it is an inviolable rule and one whose perfecting function should be the goal and demand of every American.
  6. Expanding the Roll of the Court has had its merits as the Nation evolved to refine its judicial construct and as the Country expanded from a plenary of Territories and then on to 50 Sovereign States. Any effort beyond that can only be viewed to be nothing more than what it is; Political Barratry. Remember: “Without the absolute independence of a Judicial Order there is no capacity for Justice.”

“Hostile to Democracy”, so says the Judicial Committee’s favorite resident fascist, one Rep. Mondaire Jones. By reviewing any one of the points made previously I believe it quite clear that this entire effort has nothing to do with Judicial Remedy, none whatsoever and everything to do with the deliberate overload of Political Posturing. For the Fascist Demagogues to have any hope of furthering the degradation of this Nation’s Sovereign Order they will need a Court with Fascist leanings otherwise every one of their Legislative Efforts, all of which will end up before the Supreme Court, will be incinerated by a Court deferential to the U.S. Constitution. Ah, there you go, “Checks and Balances”, oh how these swine hate a system that is so very difficult to corrupt!

Allow me to close with the following query: Is it to Contest or is to make Complicit? It is an absolute necessity for the American People to be belligerent and vocally defiant in their defense of their Sovereign Liberty after all if you are not at liberty to express your will you are neither free or are you at liberty to express it. Are their efforts demonstrating a desire to Contest the Governments stripping or confiscation of your Liberty to Freely Express your Sovereign will or are they uniformly Complicit in degrading further those very Liberties and Freedoms that define the Sovereign Condition?

I believe their intentions and resolve is quite clear. In fact, today, most Americans have less freedom and associate liberties than the Peasants of Feudal England.

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in On Point, Poli-Philos. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.