Many Americans consider the United States Supreme Court to be a hallowed ground of goodness; an all-knowing collection of fatherly and motherly wise men and women who protect the lives and freedoms of citizens. We see the Supreme Court’s decisions as the rule of law that cannot be challenged in terms of intelligence or virtue. Americans could not be any more mistaken. Like many Courts in general the United States Supreme Court is not only partisan and beholden to wealthy interests – it was put in place by politicians – but the Supreme Court is also often times EVIL. If you doubt this let’s look at some of what the Supreme Court has done to American Citizens. We’ll do this by looking at the decisions of the Court itself. That’s the best evidence. Let’s see if some of you might want to defend the Court’s actions.

In Buck v. Bell the Supreme Court found that it was legal for states to sterilize citizens – even teenagers. As a result some 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century. The victims of this state-sponsored sterilization included people who had been labeled "mentally deficient;" as well as the deaf, blind or diseased. Minorities and poor people were frequently the target of these – scalpels cutting into genitals – forced sterilizations. Women that were accused of being "promiscuous" were also a favorite focus of the butchery. With regard to Carrie Buck contrary to the Court there were three generations but no imbeciles except the Court.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not human but, rather, property. Of course as property these African Americans could be sterilized, bred, raped, murdered, worked to death and otherwise subjected to horrors. This decision was never reversed by the Court. It took the Civil War to reverse the decision. Lately we’ve seen that there are a number of Americans who would love to return to the Dred Scott days.

In Lochner v. New York the Supreme Court reversed a New York law that limited the amount of hours a person could work in bakeries. At the time the conditions in bakeries were excessively hot and harsh. The Court said that law meant to protect workers violated the Fourteenth Amendment. It is ironic that the Fourteenth Amendment was a post-Civil War amendment designed to make slavery in each of the individual states illegal. The decision marked the beginning of what is known as the Lochner Era – a period of time where laws designed to protect workers were ruled to be unconstitutional. This was a time where workers literally died by the dozen or more in fires, coal mine disasters, etc. as well as work related poisoning. Many Americans want to see the return of the Lochner Era.

In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly okay for a corporation to get a city to forcibly eject citizens from their rightfully owned property – and tear down their houses – in order to build a shopping mall. The reasoning behind the decision was the argument that the mall was for the public’s benefit. Undoubtedly the folks that would get the most benefit were the owners of the corporation who would make tons of money off the mall. The politicians who probably took bribes also benefited. Many Americans have enormous love for corporations and their right to do whatever they want to other people.

Gun advocates are fond of claiming that gun ownership “is part of my rights.” When pressed many don’t know where these rights come from but most cite to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the gun advocates the Second Amendment guarantees them “the right to bear arms” or the “the right to have guns” or something similar. Almost no gun advocates have even bothered to read the Second Amendment that they cite to as the justification for all the killing of children and worshippers that happens in this country because of guns – weapons to be exact. High capacity rapid firing death machines. Well I am going to give them the opportunity to read the Second Amendment. Here it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Weapon advocates are quick to seize on the following language:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But that is not all of the language. That is not even the most important language. What starts it all? Here is the most important language:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …

The above language – “A well regulated Militia …” – serves as the premise and the preface for what follows. In other words the reason that people have “the right … to keep and bear arms” is because “A well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State …” Here it all is again. Don’t just skip to the end. Read the whole thing.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right to “keep and bear arms” is for “a well regulated Militia” so that the “Militia” can maintain “the security of a free state.” It’s not for crazy bastards who shoot people up and it’s also not for the heck of it.

Back when the Second Amendment was written militias were common place. These militias were made up of citizens who volunteered. They would practice on off hours such as evenings and weekends. They were not provided with any weapons. They had to bring their own. Hence the right to “bear arms” for a “well regulated Militia.”

The militia was a line of defense against the British in the revolutionary war. Hence the language: “the security of a free State.” Remember back then the United States was a loosely connected series of States where most of the power resided – in the individualized states.

What is the equivalent of the Militia today? The National Guard is a perfect answer. The police and their equivalent – sheriff, highway patrol, FBI, etc. – if you stretch it. What are all of these people doing with weapons? Why are they all saying it’s their Constitutional right? For goodness sake read the Second Amendment. The false portrayal of the Constitution and the phony connection between guns and patriotism is annoying.

But wait. Speaking of “false” and “phony” there is the deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The father of intellectual dishonesty. Scalia has rewritten the Second Amendment. He’s given the whack job, Russian infiltrated White Nationalists and NRA a Second Amendment that simply says:

… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Instead of

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The man besides deleting the main part of the Second Amendment written by our so called “founding fathers” also added a bunch of stuff to the Second Amendment that was never there.

Let us talk about this for a little bit with the help of Professor Denis Brown who I will quote in places.As we have discussed for most of its history the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. Again this is clear from the text. And it was actually the law of the land for many many years.

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated Militia, in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era. By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion:

Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

Scalia was lying. He had a penchant for lying. That has been proven. As reported by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.
A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.
But we shouldn’t need big data to tell us this. “Bear arms” has never worked comfortably with the language of personal self-defense, hunting or target practice. Writing about the Second Amendment in 1995, historian Garry Wills put it succinctly: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.”
And in 1840, in an early right- ­to-bear-arms case, Tennessee Supreme Court Judge Nathan Green wrote: “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”
Then there’s this exchange during oral arguments in Heller. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said that “bear arms” meant to carry them outside the home. Justice David Souter asked him: “But wait a minute. You’re not saying that if somebody goes hunting deer he is bearing arms, or are you?”
Clement replied, “I would say that and so would [James] Madison and so would [Thomas] Jefferson.”
But Souter wasn’t convinced: “In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?”
Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.”
Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

Barron also notes the following about Scalia's opinion:

Still, the Supreme Court based its interpretation of the Second Amendment on more than an incorrect definition of “bear arms.” According to Scalia, the framers “undoubtedly thought” the amendment protected the universal right of self-defense, even though nowhere does the Constitution mention self-defense. It doesn’t mention hunting, either.

A dissenting opinions best summarize Scalia’s decision. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".

So this man … this Scalia … who professes to give us the original meaning of the Constitution fed us nothing more than lies. He decided not based upon the law, but upon the politics and money of the NRA and the right wing. He used bullshit to justify his decision and made a mockery out of the Constitution and the Court.

Scalia was reportedly found dead in bed with a pillow shoved partially down his throat. Perhaps this fraud of a perverse man was killed in some sort of sadomasochistic romp. Whatever the case … Scalia – the prince of Catholicism – is burning in hell. The Court; the NRA; the Republican Party; Trump and all the gun nuts have dipped their hands deeply into the blood of children.

And what of the children of Sandy Hook. Imagine that you are the father or mother of one of those poor children. You look down on your precious child’s mangled body torn ragged by bullets. What would you feel?

If I were the father or mother of a Sandy Hook child I would feel an uncontrollable rage. That rage would explode ... sometime ... someplace ... in a very purposeful fashion. With good cause. And I wouldn't need a gun.

We cannot talk about this anymore. We need to do something. In intelligent States press your law makers for the toughest gun laws that can be written. Then let the Supreme Court strike them down. Ignore the Supreme Court’s decision and enforce those laws anyway. When federal authorities are called in to stop the enforcement of the gun laws fight the federal authorities on the streets.

You are fighting for your children’s lives.

This is just a sample of despicable actions taken by the Supreme Court. Let this be our guide as we explore court proceedings in future installments in all Courts

19 views0 comments