Skip to content

Instead of “Packing the Supreme Court,” Let’s UNpack the Supreme Court

OMG, Schumer, Nadler and Markey want to “pack the Supreme Court,” by adding 4 more Democrat “Justices” to the existing 9 Supreme Bureaucrats. They want to do this because they really believe that the current Court has a 6-3 “conservative” majority! Yes, they really believe that.

The reason that the Sheeplecrats want to “pack the Supreme Court” is because they are too impatient to wait for a “Justice” to retire (or die) and be replaced by one that’s more to their liking.

So they impatiently drool to ram their dictatorial mandates and tax-thefts down the throats of the people more quickly by getting a faux “Supreme” Court to rubber-stamp their agenda. And with HR 1 all future elections will belong to them, these thieves, cheaters, fraudsters, hooligans, barbarians and shysters.

And it isn’t just Democrats who are the criminals and thieves and extortionists, the Republicans are bad, too. (See Laurence Vance’s articles exposing the conservatives and Republicans‘ corruption, ignorance and hypocrisy, for example, when it comes to their proclaiming to promote “limited government,” “free markets” and “liberty.” i.e. they’re FOS just as much as the Democrats and “liberals.”)

No, rather than packing the Supreme Commissars, I say, let’s UNpack them, by just getting rid of the whole thing. They really suck, when you get right down to it.

The 9 robed goons are unreliable, unsupportive of the Constitution, incapable of defending liberty, and they are just all around nothing more than Soviet-like apparatchiks, quite frankly.

The truth is, what we have at the top of the U.S. so-called judicial system is a Supreme Swamp, because that is exactly what those “Justices” are, just another part of the Swamp in Washington.

The Supreme Court rarely comes to the side of the rights of the individual and private property against the threats and aggressions of the government and police.

For example, while some of the current “Justices” were not there 10 years ago, at that time the High Swamp high-fived the jailing and strip searching of arrestees who were abducted for non-arrestable offenses, such as walking a dog sans leash or for unpaid parking tickets.

The Republican appointees were the ones who voted to approve such criminal treatment of presumably innocent folks. Hence, “Rethuglicans.”

But “liberals” are also useless when it comes to civil liberties. Also around that time the Court rubber-stamped the government’s drug gestapo breaking into people’s home, terrorizing them and abducting them because police smelled marijuana and heard a toilet flushing, implying people were “destroying evidence,” even though such evidence was not that of an actual crime with an actual victim.

And obviously with an 8-1 decision, several of the “liberals” on the High Swamp agreed with the usual conservative authoritarian neanderthals, that the drug war police state is so important that we must allow government police to criminally and violently break into a home and terrorize and abduct innocent people for ingesting non-approved drugs. “Liberals” Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined the “conservative” neanderthals in this one, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually citing that dusty ol’ Fourth Amendment in her lone dissent.

Sorry, morons, the real and only legitimate ruling to that case is to rule the entire drug war unconstitutional, because the government involving itself in drugs is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. And, does the individual own one’s own life and body or does the government own one’s life and body? Duh, Elena, Sonia, Clarence, et al.

The 9 robed Swamp Supremes are loathsome and corrupt, and are the lap dogs for the fascists in the White House and the communists in CONgress, and they are useless. Bought and paid for, or otherwise bribed to do the fascists bidding as well as being obedient State-worshiping ignoramuses, that is what these people are.

Chief “Justice” (sic) John Roberts suddenly switched his vote of ruling the ObamaCare law unconstitutional to his joining the Obama apparatchiks to approve the ObamaCare law and the individual mandate. Was Roberts threatened, or blackmailed? NSA whistleblower Russ Tice told how NSA abuses made high public officials susceptible to blackmail, and other NSA whistleblowers including Edward Snowden and William Binney backed those assertions.

They will be even worse now when they see government officials and juries deciding cases out of fear of being attacked by social activist thugs engaged in “peaceful” protests, and out of fear of their homes being burned to the ground.

And the Supreme Sheeple then approved ObamaCare a second time in 2015, and its subsidies, further empowering the criminal IRS. “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” said Barack Obomber, reinforced later by traitor John McCain who voted against repealing it.

The High Supreme Swamp also ruled against the Fifth Amendment in its Kelo decision to allow local governments to steal private property away from the owner and redistribute it over to other private citizens for financial profits. That was a no-brainer, but John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and the only remaining one of them left now Stephen Breyer thought otherwise.

And Scalia? An “Originalist”? Heh. Scalia of course sided with the drug war police state in the aforementioned decision, is questionable on the 2nd Amendment, rejected private property rights and self-ownership in favor of collectivist moral legislating, and obediently accepted the government’s bogus war on terror to justify violating the due process rights of detainees. (And, while he wasn’t endorsing internment camps, he even pointed out that internment camps à la World War II could return again in good ol’ USS of A.)

And Amy Coney Barrett? What a disappointment, even before she crawled up to the High Slimy Bench. In a lower court decision, Barrett sided with the other two fascists in her three-judge panel of the 7th Circus approving Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-McDonald’s) unconstitutional Covid lockdown orders and limits on gatherings.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog, constitutionalist pastor Chuck Baldwin noted that based on her previous opinions Barrett will probably rubber-stamp the COVID police state and forced vaccines, and probably the surveillance state as well.

All these Supreme Court “Justices” (sic) defend the police state, the national security state, and seem to obediently believe the government’s false flags and fabrications to justify enslaving and imprisoning the population to “protect” them from the foreign bogey man, and from their own vices.

Brett Kavanaugh. Yech. Total authoritarian apparatchik police statist swamp creature. Included in lower court rulings Kavanaugh voted in favor of CIA covering up of the JFK assassination, and other national security state interests.

I wrote in an earlier blog on Kavanaugh’s deference to the national security state regarding the bulk collection of telephony metadata. This Cato article quotes Kavanaugh’s lower court opinion from 2015:

The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty

The Fourth Amendment says nothing about there being a “special need” of government law enforcement that “outweighs” the right to be secure.

Does the Fourth Amendment say regarding our right to be secure, “except for a special need of law enforcement”? Nope.

Kavanaugh writes (with my comments inserted):

In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications [Yes it does, with phone calls and emails as well!], but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called.

Besides being ignorant of the feds’ ongoing criminal intrusions against innocent people, Kavanaugh also cites “drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports” as examples of allowable violations of the Fourth Amendment.

In a different case, while the Court’s “liberals” in the majority voted to protect the right of the people and their cell phone data to not be tracked, the neanderthal “conservatives” who love the police state say, no, we think that gestapo Amerikan police goons must be permitted to track people’s cell phone data without a warrant, without reasonable suspicion, because we really don’t support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and its Fourth Amendment, as we swore an oath to do. (And that case included Neil Gorsuch with the other conservatards who love the police state. So much for that guy.)

So, the Government Supremacists cite “exigent circumstances” when they know the gubmint goons are violating someone’s Fourth Amendment rights but they don’t care, such as in the case of permitting police to draw blood from an unconscious motorist who had already parked his van and was walking about. So, the Supreme Swampers themselves are goons and thugs, in my view. The Supreme Thugs is really what they are.

But back to Supreme Thug Brett Kavanaugh, in at least 3 “national security” (sic) cases Kavanaugh rubber-stamped the holding of terrorism suspects without charge or actual suspicion or evidence at the Guantanamo prison. (al-Bihani v. Obama, Uthman v. Obama, and Omar v. McHugh.) He might as well be an employee of the CIA. So, what if Gubmint suspected you conservatives of “insurrection” or “domestic terrorism,” for example, you want their goons abducting you without evidence or warrants and to be imprisoned indefinitely? You want that? Duh, conservatives.

Conservatives defended Kavanaugh in his nomination battle, but they don’t realize that Kavanaugh is a staunch “social justice” defender of Title IX. As he stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Title IX helped make girls’ and women’s sports equal. And I see that law’s legacy every night when I walk into my house, as my daughters are getting back from lacrosse or basketball or hockey practice.” So obviously he is clueless as to the abuses of Title IX to enable false accusations of hapless males especially in college. Duh, “conservatives.”

Speaking of “social justice” (sic), the Supreme Swamp also shows what unprincipled gutless wonders they are in their attempting to defend a baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, but for the wrong reasons, a decision based on anything but the private property rights they should be upholding but seem to have no clue as to what that actually is.

And why didn’t the Supreme Bureaucrats overturn the “Defense of Marriage Act,” or any of the states’ impositions or state referendums on protecting or forbidding gay marriage? Why do legislatures or CONgress get themselves involved with the people’s private matters? As I wrote in this article, you own your own life and have a right to form whatever contracts with others you want, as long as it’s voluntary. Marriage is none of the State’s damn business!

The gutless Supreme Apparatchiks also showed how they view freedom of the Press by declining to hear journalist James Risen’s case on protecting a confidential source. They obediently and pathologically defend the national security state no matter what. But, they merely reflect the Amerikan True Believers. Oh, well.

And on freedom of speech, the “Justices” (sic) all oppose free speech when the other Party is the one being opposed, with socialism-dreaming “liberal” Elena Kagan possibly being the worst of them.

I’m sure the sheeple Democrats and Republicans would go running to the Supreme Nannies to get their permission on whether the people of the states can make use of the 10th Amendment to nullify federal edicts.

But, real Americans will nullify fascist orders and intrusions whether the Supreme Bureaucrats like it or not.

Tom Woods wrote a terrific book on the history of nullification in America and how it should be used currently:  Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Woods addresses objections to nullification on this page. (And see this, this, and this.)

I wish I could advocate “packing the Supreme Court” with libertarians and voluntaryists who believe in the non-aggression principle, private property rights, self-ownership, freedom of contract and freedom of association, but that’s not realistic.

No, the answer is to UNpack the Supreme Court and “throw the bums out,” along with the rest of the horrible central planning apparatus in criminal Washington. You bet.

Published inAuthoritarianismBureaucracyDecentralizationNational Security StateSocial JusticeSocialismSupreme CourtU.S. Constitution