Contrary to the belief of most judges, their legitimacy does not come from the Constitution. Their legitimacy is a result of our consent to be governed. U.S. citizens and government functionaries have a pact of civilized behavior, in which we grant the government powers, in exchange for assurances that those powers will not be abused. The Constitution is merely our written contract laying out the terms and conditions of that pact. As it pertains to the Article III branch of government, we agree to give the courts the power to adjudicate disputes, and judges swear an oath to us that they will defend our founding principles without bias and according to laws passed by our elected representatives. But the legitimacy of the courts has been waning, ever since judges began treating their commitment to our agreement – their oath – as nonbinding.
The problem became apparent when Supreme Court justices gave themselves a power not granted in the Constitution – the authority to find things “emanating” from the Constitution, but not actually written in it. In the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William Douglass found a right to privacy emanating from a penumbra of the Constitution – i.e. it was peeking out from behind the Constitution, but was not actually written in it.
With that precedent, the Constitution became an evolving document, changing via opinion, rather than amendment. Federal judges were suddenly empowered to skip the prescribed process, for changing the Constitution, and began doing so by merely ruling from the bench. Using their new-found power, they discovered a right to gay marriage (which isn’t written in the Constitution), restrictions on bearing arms (which is supposedly protected by the Constitution), and even a right for the government to censor us (which the Constitution specifically prohibits).
But the invention of penumbral reasoning was also something else. It was a constructive contract change without the consent of all parties. The Supreme Court was violating the terms of the contract applicable to it, while expecting us to abide by the terms applicable to us. Our elite members of the legal profession should have known that’s not how contracts work.
Our mutual pact was further strained in 2012 when the Supreme Court decided that it could litigate as well as adjudicate cases before it. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Seblius, the Department of Justice specifically argued that the fines associated with Obamacare were not taxes. Faced with what was clearly an unconstitutional law, Chief Justice Roberts argued that the law could be Constitutional, if the fines weren’t fines, but were instead taxes. Based on his own alternative argument, he cast the deciding vote to uphold the law.
The precedent set by Chief Justice Roberts is now standard practice in the judicial branch. When prosecutors for the federal government dropped the charges against Michael Flynn, Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed his own prosecutor to continue with the trial. Hence Sullivan was supervising the prosecution of a case, which he was also adjudicating. I wonder how the case would have turned out, had the outrage not been stopped by a Presidential pardon.
With their ability to find unwritten laws and participate as litigants in cases before them, judges began exploring new ways to create mischief. In that environment, it was inevitable that political affiliation would become more predictive of judicial outcome than the letter of the law. The drift away from fidelity to the law gave birth to lawfare and judge shopping. Partisans not given power by the electorate need only find a sympathetic judge to bend the executive and legislative branches to their will – skipping the messy business of debate and compromise.
Litigation began to replace legislation. The practice became so widespread, that the media began identifying Judges by who appointed them (e.g. “Obama Judge Boasberg,” or “Trump Judge Cannon”).
Alarmed at the emerging public perception that his branch of government had become partisan activists, Chief Justice Roberts informed the public that we were simply wrong. He said:
We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
But denying the existence of a problem which we could all clearly see, only served to further erode public trust in the judicial branch of government, and made us question our consent for it to have power over us.
Now the judicial house of cards, built by myopic and activist judges, is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. District judges Brian Murphy and Wendy Beetlestone are refusing to comply with Supreme Court rulings – Murphy on an immigration case, and Beetlestone on a religious freedom matter. Why shouldn’t they? There are apparently no consequences for their defiance. The cancer of bias has hit stage IV in one-third of our federal government. The end of the road for judicial activism is becoming apparent, and it is not a healthy republic of the self-governed.
The “Equal Justice Under Law” inscription chiseled into the front of the Supreme Court building has ceased being the guiding principle of our judicial branch. Instead, it has become a public taunt about the broken terms and conditions in our contract. The actions of the Supreme Court, and the courts it presides over, have placed us in an actual Constitutional crisis – a branch of government, with authority to do things, which the self-governed no longer trust it to do.
What will finally break the public’s confidence in the courts forever? Will there be some revelation of judicial malpractice which shows the public that the contract Constitution has been irrevocably breached, and civility can only be maintained with a massive renegotiation of terms and conditions, along with reparations for damages?
FBI Director Patel and Attorney General Bondi are declassifying evidence of deep state corruption at a feverish rate. We now know that our own intelligence community (FBI, CIA, ODNI, DOJ, etc.) attempted to steal an election with a propaganda operation. Will future document dumps also reveal that the 2020 election was stolen by coordinated election tampering – evidence of the sort which the Supreme Court refused to even hear? Note that DNI Gabbard recently reported the discovery of hidden evidence about the 2020 election.
Will the public, which adjudicates the legitimacy of our third branch of government, deem the Supreme Court culpable for the murder and mayhem wrought by the man who sat behind the Resolute Desk, with the blessing of the Court, but without the consent of the governed? At what point will lost trust, turn into lost consent, and what will that look like?
Author Bio: John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He spent his career designing complex defense systems, developing high performance organizations, and doing corporate strategic planning. He is a contributor to American Thinker, The American Spectator, and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
The legitimacy of any of the 3 branches of our government has always been subject to question of the populace. The “news” here is that the liberal media is now questioning it.
Justice Douglas’ “emanations” and “penumbra” should have been unnecessary, though it was illuminative writing. The Right to Privacy should have been understood as basic. We have the right to free speech, the right to our property, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to not self incriminate, the right to not have troops barracked in our houses, (among others stated in the Bill of Rights) all of which are because we have the right to privacy. However, our individual right to privacy does not require other tax payers to subsidize our right.
A return to Originalism is the path to judicial correctness. It isn’t conservative or liberal, it is the path set out by our Founding Fathers. Altruistic, optimistic, and fair.