Judicial Supremacy: The Left’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

Barb Wire

Note: In response to our recent open letter to the conservative movement, we continue “The Conservative Leadership Project” here at CR, a series of articles that will first look to answer why we lose, and then come up with a plan for us to win.

What are the odds you could win a war if you never dismantled your enemy’s most devastating weapon, but instead allowed it unfettered access to devastate you?

Obviously those odds wouldn’t be good. Which explains why there was a rush to acquire the A-bomb towards the end of World War II, and why Mikhail Gorbachev finally came to the bargaining table once Reagan unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (or “Star Wars” program) in the mid-1980s. Whoever first acquires such advantages usually ends up winning the war.

The same is true in the battle to preserve our constitutional republic.

Trending: 120 Christians Killed in Nigeria and the World Remains Silent

For well over a generation, the Left’s weapon of mass destruction has been the canard of “judicial supremacy,” meaning that whenever a court speaks, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, that is the final word on what the Constitution means, that the judiciary branch is superior to the other two branches, and even superior over the will of the people. Given how unpopular many of the Left’s most controversial ideas are, they needed this anti-constitutional scam to impose policies that would’ve never passed muster at the ballot box.

And whether it’s infamous precedents like Roe v. Wade (inventing the “right” to kill preborn children), Lawrence v. Texas (inventing the so-called “right” to homosexuality), Kelo v. London (inventing the “right” to confiscate private property for economic development), or Plyler v. Doe (inventing an illegal alien’s “right” to taxpayer money), almost every gain the Left has made in my lifetime has been imposed by judicial supremacy.

Which means it’s pretend law enacted lawlessly.

Even when the Left has attempted to follow duly enumerated law-making process like it did with Obamacare, there again it was the courts who salvaged it. Despite the fact the attorneys for Obamacare testified before the Supreme Court that the Obamacare mandate wasn’t a tax, Chief Justice John Roberts literally re-wrote the bill as a tax to make Obamacare compliant with the 16th Amendment. Thus setting the lawless precedent government can order you to do whatever it desires provided it’s a “tax.”

Furthermore, unjust edicts from the judiciary are not even a recent development in our nation’s history.

Perhaps the most wicked ruling in SCOTUS history was the Dred Scott decision, which determined that Scott was his slave master’s property because he was black and therefore not a person as protected by the Constitution (“no ‘person’ shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”).

Almost a half-century later, the Supreme Court also ruled that “separate but equal” segregation laws were constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson. In fact, it was for violating the segregation precedent set by Plessy that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was incarcerated in 1963. When challenged by white clergy at the time as to why he wasn’t waiting for the matter to make its way through the courts, like it had in prior cases like Brown v. Board of Education, MLK wrote this in his magnum opus, Letter From a Birmingham Jail:

There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break “laws.” This is certainly a legitimate concern.

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”

The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law…We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious (unjust) laws.

A recent piece written by Dr. John C. Eastman, the dean of Chapman University’s school of law, eloquently makes the case we have again reached a time when “the cup of endurance runs over.” That it is time for presidential leadership “with the fortitude of Lincoln” to stand against judicial supremacy, according to Dr. Eastman.

I agree, which is why I sent the following email to the presidential campaigns of Governor Scott Walker, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Former Governor Mike Huckabee, Former Senator Rick Santorum, Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Ben Carson, Governor Bobby Jindal, Businessman Donald Trump, and Governor Rick Perry today:

I am sending this to you as a potential 2016 candidate I have either spoken directly to, or has appeared on my radio program. Here is a link to a story that is of the utmost importance to Iowa conservatives: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/03/14627/

In 2010, Iowans historically fired three state supreme court justices for believing they alone were the law, and had the power to amend the constitution from the bench as well as erase 5,000 years of precedent. Several of you enthusiastically supported that effort, and it was appreciated.

Now, with the Supreme Court potentially poised to repeat the Dred Scott/Plessy v. Ferguson/Roe v. Wade mistake on marriage, conservatives in the first in the nation caucus state (and elsewhere) are seeking leadership on the issue of judicial supremacy. Obviously, one of your chief responsibilities as president will be oversight and execution in this area.

Next week I’d like to publish your responses to this Public Discourse column in a national column of my own. Your answers can be as long or short as you wish. All I ask is that you please have your answers to me by Sunday, March 22nd at 5 p.m. eastern if you wish to participate. I will be announcing who I sent this inquiry to both my radio and print offices, so that they can anticipate your answers.

Thanks to all of you for your consideration, as well as your willingness to step up and run for president during a time our country is in dire need of principled leadership.

Next week I will publish those responses unedited, should I receive any, right here at CR. It goes without saying that failing to respond to such an inquiry is, in and of itself, an answer–albeit a disappointing one.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Steve Deace
Steve Deace is one of the "Heavy Hundred" talk show hosts in America according Talkers Magazine. His influence in the first in the nation Iowa Caucuses has been profiled in much of the national media, and he's also a columnist for The Washington Times. His new book, out now and endorsed by a who's who of conservative leaders, is titled Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.