This graphic appears in The New York Times. It allegedly tracks how the court's liberal/conservative balance has shifted over time:
You can read about it and see a more detailed version of the graphic @
I find this entire concept to be fraudulent.
What does the US Constitution say about the court?
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Note that only one crime is defined (treason), and only one special type of criminal trial is mentioned (impeachment).
Congress passes the laws. The President "faithfully" executes the laws. SCOTUS interprets the laws. All members of each of those groups take a similar oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the US.
How can you "protect, preserve, and defend" something when you cannot even agree on its meaning?
Why does no one appear to know the definition of "natural born citizen"?
Why should "liberal" or "conservative" make a difference if the laws are to be enforced "faithfully"? To me "faithful" means "conservative". What does it mean to you?
This controversy only exists because the court wants to LEGISLATE, the President wants it to legislate, and the Congress is too cowardly to impeach those who fail to uphold the conditions of their oath of office.
What's that you say? Breaking one's oath of office is not a crime?
WHY ISN'T IT A CRIME? WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF TREASON, IT'S THE WORST CRIME OF ALL.
No comments:
Post a Comment