By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling that significantly impacts the legal landscape surrounding birthright citizenship. The decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, effectively allows a Trump executive order denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents to take effect. While the court avoided directly addressing the constitutional questions about birthright citizenship, the ruling also bars lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, which has been criticized for its implications on immigration enforcement. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, accused the Court of “gamesmanship,” and Justice Jackson called the decision “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
Read the original article here
Supreme Contempt for the Constitution, it appears, is not just a sentiment, but a deep-seated fear and frustration resonating through a substantial portion of the population. The core issue seems to be the perception that the Supreme Court, and by extension the legal system, has been corrupted, becoming a tool for political agendas rather than a guardian of the Constitution. This feeling of betrayal is fueled by specific actions and rulings, perceived as undermining the principles of democracy and individual liberties.
The idea that the Supreme Court is acting as partisan shills, essentially political actors in robes, surfaces repeatedly. The complaint is that these unelected justices, with lifetime appointments, wield immense power to shape the law of the land without accountability. The contrast between their influence and the lack of democratic oversight breeds resentment and a sense of powerlessness. This sentiment is further intensified by the fact that several justices were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote, exacerbating the feeling that the Court is not truly representative of the will of the people.
The erosion of the social contract is another key theme. There’s a sense that the fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and equality are being eroded. This is linked to the perception that the Court is imposing pain on certain segments of the population, prioritizing the interests of the powerful, and disregarding the rights of individuals. The examples cited, such as the potential for drastically different citizenship rules based on geography, underscore the feeling that the legal system is arbitrary and inconsistent, leading to inequality and injustice.
The actions and inactions of political parties are also under scrutiny. The Democratic Party, in particular, faces criticism for its perceived lack of action in addressing the perceived crisis. The question, “What have the Democrats been doing?” reflects a feeling of disappointment and frustration, as if the party is not effectively fighting to protect the rights of citizens. Some believe the Democrats, and indeed both parties, are complicit in the current state of affairs. The implication is that the system is broken and may require radical change, perhaps even the abolition of existing political structures, to achieve meaningful progress.
The consequences of this perceived betrayal are profound. There is a palpable sense of despair and disillusionment, with some suggesting the US democracy is dead or doomed. The historical references, such as the comparison to the Confederacy, highlight the gravity of the situation, with a sense that the country is moving in a dangerous direction. The call for drastic measures, like a new FDR or even more radical solutions, underscores the urgency of the situation and the feeling that the current path is unsustainable.
The discussion also touches on the mechanics of the problem, specifically questioning the role of federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions. The argument is that federal judges are appointed to a district, not the entire country. This is a direct challenge to the Court’s power, implying that they are overstepping their boundaries. It also calls into question the impartiality of the Court when it rules on matters affecting the very president who appointed the justices. This conflict of interest exacerbates the perception that the Court is operating in bad faith.
The proposed solutions vary, but many of them involve structural changes to the Court itself. Term limits for justices, expanding the Court, and altering the appointment process are just a few ideas. There’s also the suggestion of a new “Vladimir Lenin” – a call for more radical change to dismantle the current systems, perhaps through revolution. These ideas highlight the depth of the discontent and the sense that incremental changes are insufficient to address the perceived crisis.
The comments reflect a deep concern about the direction of the country and a sense that the Constitution, once a symbol of American ideals, is being disregarded. This feeling of profound disillusionment seems to stem from a combination of specific legal rulings, the perceived corruption of the political system, and a loss of faith in the institutions designed to protect individual liberties. The overwhelming sentiment is one of betrayal and a growing fear for the future. The phrase, “Supreme Contempt for the Constitution,” encapsulates the feelings of many, reflecting a growing crisis of confidence in the very foundations of American democracy.