SCOTUS Under Pressure

Timothy Birdnow

Now that SCOTUS has rejected a Wisconsin vote fraud lawsuit, America is descending into banana republican status or worse. Yet we are told they upheld the rule of law!  At least the Democrats and especially the labor unions are all crowing about it.

Hmm...are the courts immune from political pressures? Did they look at the evidence and reject the case based on that, or were they arm-twisted into it? Many of our liberal friends would say this was a pure decision, but I disagree.

Writing in Canada Free Press Dennis Jamison reminds us of some history:

One famous incident occurred at the time of the Dred Scott decision. James Buchanan influenced the votes of justices on the Supreme Court. Recent sources indicate that Buchanan was quite pro-actively involved in the decision-making process of the Court a number of months leading up to his own inauguration as president-elect. At the time, southern Democrats (possibly including much of the northern Party as well) were aligned against any effort that would lead to abolition of slavery. The Supreme Court was handily in the pocket of the "Democratic” Party, and that is why the infamous Dred Scott decision was easy to pass. Yet, James Buchanan helped to expand the effect of the decision.

James Buchanan was one of those northern Democrats, according to some current historians, motivated to rid the nation of the Republican Party as they were enemies to the free exercise of slavery across the nation. In addition, he seems to have been motivated to single-handedly putting an end to the divisiveness over the potential expansion of slavery into the northern territories. According to historians who examine his political shrewdness, he saw an opportunity in the Dred Scott case coming to a climax in the Supreme Court just prior to his inauguration as POTUS. Ignoring the constitutional concept of "Separation of Powers,” Buchanan wrote to a friend, Justice John Catron, in January of 1857 and made an overt suggestion that a much broader or more pervasive decision was wise.

This initial exchange was followed by Justice Catron, a Southern Democrat, suggesting that Buchanan persuade a northern justice to also support the Southern justices on the Supreme Court, otherwise it would look like a sectional decision, and they would not be able to write a more pervasive judgment on Dred Scott. Buchanan had nurtured the hope that a broad-based decision would protect the expansion of slavery into the other northern and western territories, and put the contentiousness over slavery to rest, as well as totally undermining the Republicans. Buchanan was able to influence his fellow Pennsylvanian, Justice Robert Grier, since he had promoted Grier’s appointment to the Court.

 

According to a 2004 book by Jean Baker, president-elect Buchanan did write to Grier and persuaded the justice that a "comprehensive judgment that moved beyond the particulars of Dred Scott’s individual status into that of all black Americans—slave and free, North and South…” could be used "as a turning point for a triumphant program of national harmony.” Grier’s vote added to the Supreme Court’s Southern majority and made the decision appear to the public as nothing like a North-South divisive issue. The high court’s 7-2 vote against the slave, who was relegated to a piece of property, did provide a much more far-reaching judgment, additionally rendering the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roger Taney, himself a slave owner, in his opinion on the case, wrote that Blacks "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

There is other evidence of the breach of the Separation of Powers among the three branches of the federal government, but could there still be tampering with the decisions of the Supreme Court? Use common sense; do not eat the poison the MSM propagates on a daily basis. The extensive evidence would not be received.

Chief Justice Taney’s Court was controlled by a majority of slave owners with the ‘excuse’ that they were bigots and racists. In an incredible twist of true justice, the black member of the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas bore the brunt of what his colleagues seemed to be afraid of. He was one of three demonstrating genuine courage to protect and defend the constitution, despite the recent rejections. What will history reflect about the "excuse” of Chief Justice John Robert’s Court? So far, anemic legalese cannot cloak cowardice.

Yes, the Supreme Court is capable of being coerced. And in this era where the Congress and the President are both Democrats and have 100% media support the Court - a divided Court - was not going to touch this. If they had they would have had to either lie in their opinions or admit the election was fraudulent - something that would tear the country apart. None of the Justices were willing to do that. The best, most logical course of action from their limited perspective is to not take the case - just as most courts also did not take the cases. If the evidence is not heard they won't have to rule and it won't come out. Now liberals can claim it was an "honest election" with impunity. The idea is the rest of us will just have to move on.

And that is what the GOP is promoting. But letting this go will only make it happen again.

Neville Chamberlain should have taught us a thing or two. Giving in means greater transgressions later. No "peace in our time".

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 984 words, total size 7 kb.