The Federal Judiciary's Constitutional Crisis

By Rich Kozlovich

May 23, 2018  Daniel Horowitz posted an article entitled, Where is the ‘social conservative’ pushback against the Rainbow Jihad and judicial immorality? saying:

There is not a single social conservative group left in Washington. But one need not be a social conservative to understand the settled science of X and Y chromosomes. Not even the military is safe from the Rainbow Jihad. 

Last year, in one of the many stupefying power grabs of the judiciary, several district judges issued a royal edict demanding that Trump admit into the military the most suicidal demographic of men who self-identify as women or vice versa. A policy that never existed since our founding until the final year of Obama’s presidency and was certainly never authorized by statute was, much like executive amnesty, codified into our Constitution by rogue judges.

He goes on to note:

• America has become an abortion and transgender wasteland, including in our military, we are now the world’s magnet for social licentiousness. Call it chain migration of cultural Marxism.
• A federal district judge in Virginia ruled that Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment create a right for a girl to use the boys’ bathroom and that a school district must accommodate it.
• Judges have been applying the Constitution to mix a “right to immigrate” with a “right to self-identify.”
• A radical leftist judge in New York issued an opinion saying that Trump can’t block individual Twitter accounts from following his account.
• A slew of court rulings in recent months bestowed upon abortion migrants the right to come here and demand access to an abortion.
• The second most important court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that all teenage girls (and some lie about their age) coming here for an abortion must be given direct access to an abortion clinic. Another judge went a step further and made it clear that the government must fully notify teenagers of their “right” to an abortion.
• An immigration judge granted asylum to someone fleeing Mexico asserting they fear because of their status as transgender. Naturally, people are now coming here for “asylum.” 

The fact is the only federal court authorized by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. All others are creations of the Congress, and the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of all federal courts.  They can, and have in the past, forbidden ajudication of a case.  The court can hear the case if they like, but they can be ordered not to rule on it. 

We're not just now all of a sudden facing a Constitutional crisis between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the government.  It's been in the making since "Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional."

Who gave the federal judiciary the idea it was the courts that decide what the Constitution means?  In spite of all the clabber used to justify that concept, including going back to precedents from England - they pretty much gave it to themselves.  Worse yet, Alexander Hamilton supported such an idea, which should give everyone serious qualms about how valid that is since Hamilton was a statist who liked the idea of an overpowering central government.  He would have been the perfect little statist today, so now you can understand why a play about him became popular among the left.

First, has the Supreme Court stopped the Congress and the President from doing things that are clearly unconstitutional for the good of the nation?  Yes.  Should there be judicial review of the other branches?  I think so, because both the Executive and Legislative branches have completely violated Constitutional rights to impose statism in one form or the other.   But having done something right doesn't give the court a pass of the rest of life, especially since the federal judiciary is filled with political hacks, including some on the Supreme Court, and they change regularly.  Unfortunately, they don't change often enough since these are lifetime appointments. 

Demonstrating just how dangerous the federal judiciary has become it's clear the judiciary has forgotten this is supposed to be a government of laws, not a government of men.  No matter how convoluted the court’s reasoning can be - and convoluted reasoning has been the pattern in many of their rulings, leading to ever more convolution - the court has "no roving license to disregard the clear language of the laws” passed by Congress or in the Constitution with these dangerous rationalizations that when legislators wrote their laws they didn't really mean what they said.  What legislators really intended was for a much broader understanding, even if they didn't say so and even if there's nothing in the law that gives that impression.  In other words – their own personal broader understanding should replace the lack of vision of legislators. 

No matter what twisted rationalizations are presented the courts have no authority to rewrite any law "under the under the pretense of interpreting it."

I'm not in favor of abandoning judicial review, I'm in favor of ameliorating it. 

If the Constitution is going to really be the document that governs government and is the real and legitimate law of the land, it's in serious need of reinforcements. It’s time for a 28th Amendment that would impose strict term and age limits on the federal judiciary.

My fix is twofold.  Congress deliberately overturns these rulings by passing a law - which falls under their Constitutional authority - including ordering that such a law cannot be reviewed by the courts, which it has done in the past, (but given the craven nature of members of Congress that seems unlikely) and/or pass a 28th Amendment creating term limits for the federal judiciary.

There are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten-year limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future. No jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist may serve after the age of seventy.

 

Now, if we really want to fix the rest of the nation's problems repeal the Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments and eliminate the FED.  After that every thing else will fall into place.