– #Conscientious Objection on The Original vs Rotten Rule of Law –
The numbers tell a clear story. There are a total of 816 active federal judges comprising the supreme court, the 13 appellate courts, and 91 district courts. In just one term Trump was able to appoint 28% of those judges due to past and continuing vacancies. Most importantly, he appointed 33% of America’s nine supreme court justices and 30% of the appellate judges. The vast majority of his appointments were white males – not one of his 54 appellate judges is Black. But what really stands out is the age of his appointees. The average age of his appellate judges was 47 (five years younger than those selected by Barack Obama). Six of those were in their 30s, and 20 were under 45. By contrast, of the 55 appellate judges picked by Obama – in eight years, not four – none were in their 30s and only six were younger than 45.
TO WHOM THE "SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION" MAY CONCERN
The Constitution and The American Declaration represent the Code of Conduct for All Americans!
The threat does not come from overseas or from any foreign source – would that, it did; we could easily repel it. It comes from within our own borders and from certain of our own judges, who are widely echoed by various lawyers, professors in journalists. Is the threat of the "ink eradicator" philosophy. ... What is the "ink eradicator" philosophy and what does it propose to accomplish? It's immediate objective is simple to state. It aims to erase the words of the First Amendment from the parchment of our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment guarantees us separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable Assembly and – by implication – freedom of association. The "ink eradicators" have long since served notice that they disapprove of the whole notion of a written Bill of Rights and would prefer to eliminate the entire document. ... They insist that all words are too imprecise to be taken for what they say, that every affirmative may just as well be a negative and every negative an affirmative, and that only the naive among us will permit a categorical prohibition to stand in the way of what seems expedient at any given moment. Words have so little meaning in their view that one wonders how they can use words to tell us so. ... What do the "ink eradicators" say about the First Amendment? The amendment itself is couched in what the rest of us might consider rather direct terms. It provides that "Congress shall make no law" on certain subjects that the Founding Fathers considered sacred and indispensable to human dignity. Although the Amendment says precisely that "Congress shall make no law" in these fields, the "ink eradicators" claim that it means something quite different. They claim that when it says "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no 'unreasonable' law". So far, so ominous. But the next question is: What is "unreasonable" law? They have a quick answer: A law, they insist, is "unreasonable only, if a majority of the judges decide it is." Suppose, then, the Congress proceeds to flout the First Amendment and abridge our freedom of religion or speech or press, how are the judges to determine whether the law is reasonable or unreasonable? This, they reply, is easy: The law "must be reasonable or Congress would not have enacted it. It would be an assault to the members of Congress, for whom all patriotic Americans feel a reverence bordering on idolatry, were the judges to take the first amendment literally and nullify such a law." (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – The Threat of Ink Eradication)
Neither The President of The United States nor Congress or The Supreme Court of The United States must have the Power to (by)pass Legislation or Jurisdiction qualifying for overriding[2] the Unequivocal Statutes of The Constitution[3] and The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man[4] beyond the extent of their orginal Meaning and Purpose.
Legal philosophy in its long career has found a score of ways to ask whether judges are themselves consumers of the law. Does a judge assume any political responsibility of an ethical nature when he enforces in immoral private law (i.e., a contract) or an inhumane public law (i.e., a statute)? If you does, has he a "legal" right to refuse enforcement? ... The proposition that judges too may be consumers of the law has immediate practical applications. ... The majority have neglected the interest of the judge as consumer of the law while the minority have concentrated on his interest to the exclusion of everyone else's. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Legal Philosophy and Judicial Consumers of Law)
The Coduct of Conduct[5] for Supercilious ... sorry ... Supreme Court Judges is not to serve as a substitute for The Supremacy of The Constitution.
Legal philosophy in its long career has found a score of ways to ask whether judges are themselves consumers of the law. Does a judge assume any political responsibility of an ethical nature when he enforces in immoral private law (i.e., a contract) or an inhumane public law (i.e., a statute)? If you does, has he a "legal" right to refuse enforcement? ... The proposition that judges too may be consumers of the law has immediate practical applications. ... The majority have neglected the interest of the judge as consumer of the law while the minority have concentrated on his interest to the exclusion of everyone else's. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Legal Philosophy and Judicial Consumers of Law)
Well?!
Fiat Iustitia Et Pereat Mundus
Cal Caleido
(Highland Park Zoo, Pittsburgh, Summer of Love 1967)
Frame of Reference
The "US Enabling Act" of 1 July 2024
Scotus' & Croesus' Love Divine!
Ink Eradicators of The US Constitution
Withstanding Êpitomes of Destrûctiveness!
Fiat Iustitia Et Pereat Mundus
[1] The Politics Shed - The relationship between the president and the Supreme Court (google.com) ––– List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States (Wikiped) – note: Compare nominations under > George W. Bush > Barrack Obama > Donald Trump.
[2] Marbury v. Madison (Wikiped) ––– Marbury v. Madison :: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
[3] Constitution of The United States of America (constitutioncenter.org)
[4] American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (oas.org)
[5] (1884) Rules: Supreme Court of The United States (supremecourt.gov) ––– (2023) Code of Conduct for Justices of The Supreme Court (supremecourt.gov) ––– related as follows: A Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court? Legal Questions and Considerations (fas.org) ––– The Court and Constitutional Interpretation (supremecourt.gov) ––– Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and the United States: Paradoxes and Contrasts (mpil.de)
Share this post