It is time to restrain the Supreme Court.

We now live in a day in which the endlessly contradictory opinions of justices are somehow supposed to determine which rights we have and which ones we do not. All too often, they fail to accurately interpret the Constitution, opting instead to impose arbitrary mandates without any real restraint. Not only that, but these so-called activist justices generally enjoy lifelong terms as if they are entitled to special treatment. By the very nature of our Republic, justices are inferior to the Constitution—their opinions should not be taken seriously if they cannot understand, abide by, or at least respect the text of the founding document.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) set the stage for an all-powerful judicial branch, as it established a radical precedent of interpretative power. In this case, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court may choose to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Before Marbury v. Madison, the opinions of justices were rare in frequency and restrained in scope. Essentially, the Supreme Court enumerated itself with more power by reinterpreting the Constitution. Yet it is this very court, an institution that is obligated to serve with great care and jurisprudence, that has failed in numerous ways with its iron-fisted approach.

It was the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public facilities was legal, so as long they remained “separate but equal.” Moreover, it was found in the Korematsu v. United States case (1944), that FDR’s wartime internment of Japanese-Americans, based solely on their nationality, was constitutional. Both are examples of the Supreme Court getting things entirely wrong by not upholding equal protection under the law.

And was it not Roe v. Wade (1973) where the Supreme Court ruled that the slaughtering of unborn children was part of a woman’s right to privacy? Yet they probably did not consider the supremacy of a baby’s right to life. There is no right to crime just because it is has been committed in privacy. The United States Constitution protects all human lives, preventing arbitrary deaths without due process. Do these unborn children get their time in court before they are convicted of their crimes?

Our society has made a grave mistake of placing the men and women in robes on high pedestals as if they know all there is to know. We wait week after week, hoping and praying that some lawyer will be able to defend our liberty in a landmark case. What real limitations does the Supreme Court have? If the justices give an abhorrently illegal or immoral ruling, which they have proven capable of, then the states simply should not comply. The states were never supposed to completely submit to an out-of-control federal leviathan.

The American citizenry needs to understand that liberty is a fundamental and eternal truth of our human condition. It will always prevail, as people will eventually reject oppression at its core. It is not subject to the opinion of a judge, a body of legislators, or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The American government must ultimately operate with the consent of the governed, because if we surrender our sovereignty over our system of checks and balances to the men and women in robes, who enjoy lifelong terms without practical means of impeachment, it is akin to the surrender of liberty itself. This is not an attack on federal judges. It is a condemnation of the massive amount of power we have given them.

We the American people will only get so many more chances before we reach the point of no return. It is time to restrain the power of the Supreme Court once and for all. At this moment in history, there is only one permanent way to change our treacherous course. This solution was crafted by the Founding Fathers, who feared we would end up in our current predicament. It is time to take a stand if Congress won’t do it themselves.

8 thoughts on “It is time to restrain the Supreme Court.

  1. “The judicial branch was never meant to act as a superlegislature, using the verbiage of the Constitution in order to implement preferred policy prescriptions.” Ben Shapiro

    In Canada, our constitution has a notwithstanding clause. Although it hasn’t been invoked, it gives Parliament the power to override a Supreme Court decision to prevent judicial activism.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Cole Levine, why should the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision making capacity supersede the will of the general public or override the legislative or executive branches of government, even the expressed wishes of the general public?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Excellent question. Simple answer: It shouldn’t. The Supreme Court has no business imposing its will on the American people. At most, it should interpret the Constitution as written, and preserve the law instead of upending it. It has become an activist branch of government.


  3. Cole Levine, same-sex marriage does not bother me personally. What is absurd is how conservatives want to butt into our private lives by telling us who we can be married to legally and how leftists want to pick our pockets by taxing us to death.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s