Skip to content

“Supreme” Authoritarian Dictocrats Should Not Exist in a Free Society

Can you believe how hysterical the people on the Left are with Donald Trump’s pick of Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court? They’re screaming and howling because the Supremes will take away their “reproductive rights,” which is absurd.

But the conservatives are hysterical, too, in their own ways. Their own worship of the “Supreme” decision-makers like gods is pathetic. The sheeple have been bamboozled to believe in the State apparatus like a god, and it is no such thing. It is a criminal racket.

At the Mises Institute Ryan McMaken says that the Supreme Court is much too powerful, calling it the “American version of the Soviet politburo.” It is really just another federal legislature. And while there are legal and constitutional ways to change the structure of the Court, those are just not likely to happen, for political reasons.

McMaken says the solution is to mock the court and undermine it. I thoroughly agree.

You know, like “Hey Ruth, WAKE UP!!” (as Sister Mary Elephant would say) Or, “Hey Roberts, senile much? Blackmailed much?”

I know, that’s probably not exactly what Ryan McMaken had in mind.

But I’ve been trying to do my part, such as in my frequently referring to the Supremes as the “Supreme Bureaucrats,” which is what they are.

I’ve referred to them as the “Supreme Sheeple,” and the “brilliant Supreme Intruders,” as I wrote in this 2010 blog post. Or “lettered imbeciles,” as I wrote in this 2012 article, and this 2016 blog post, in which I wrote, “When the society is dependent on 9 lettered imbeciles to decide whether or not the people may have their freedom, that society is probably doomed.”

When Justice (sic) Antonin Scalia died, I wrote,

Well, another bureaucrat bites the dust. And yes, U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” (sic) Antonin Scalia was just another bureaucrat. He claimed to be an “originalist,” basing his opinions on the “original intent” of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently that does not include the writers of the Bill of Rights (which he seemed to have long forgotten was also a part of the Constitution).

Scalia did NOT take the Framers’ passion for liberty and private property rights seriously. Thomas Jefferson would NOT agree with such police state tactics. Especially when the purpose of such State criminality is because someone has some damn DRUGS! Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al. would even oppose your police state laws prohibiting drugs in the first place if they were around today.

No, Scalia was not an “originalist.”

He was like the typical government bureaucrat: preserve the power of the government, restrict the people’s liberty. (We’re all going to be taken to the FEMA camps anyway, as Scalia believed. Oh, well.)

And in this article I wrote,

So, according to the “originalists” of the high court, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution contain exceptions for “drugs” and “terrorism”!

And the overly privileged Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the approval of the Affordable Care Act, after changing his mind (Hmmm. I wonder what could have done that?), incoherently opining that the government has the constitutional authority to order us to buy health insurance.

But now we have a Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who would dismiss as “foolish” the possibility of the Supreme Court even considering the constitutionality of NSA warrantless wiretapping, while the high court’s refusal to even hear the appeal of NDAA due process-free indefinite detention of innocents shows what fascists or total fools (or both) these people really are.

And I wrote similar critiques recently when Anthony Kennedy retired from the “High” Court: “For some reason, Anthony Kennedy doesn’t understand that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t mention “exigent circumstances.”

No, the Supreme Bureaucrats should NOT be held in high esteem. They are protectors of the State and its always expanding powers over the people. The Jolly Junk-Jurists are the official rubber-stampers of the rulers’ crimes against innocent people!

In this 2013 blog post I referred to the “USSA Supreme Court.” What, is that incorrect? Nope, it is actually the most accurate description for them.

And in this 2013 article I wrote, “Perhaps the overpaid highly-paid Justices have more important things on their minds, such as what temperature at which to set their bubble baths later on, and so forth.”

And I concluded that article with this:

I really thought that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo eminent domain ruling was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Court’s legitimacy as Ultimate Decider was concerned.

Then, last year the Supremes decided in favor of the ObamaCare mandate, with Chief Bureaucrat John Roberts declaring that the mandate was a “tax,” even though its proponents weren’t even arguing that it was a tax.

The Court’s self-delegitimizing was at that point a matter of settled law, in my book.

Published inUncategorized