What's 'Supreme' About Our Extremist Supreme Court? By Jim Hightower

[justaprogressive]

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own anti-democratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with President Donald Trump and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

&quot We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.

https://www.creators.com/read/jim-hightower

[get the red out]

1. one thing

They are the SUPREME kangaroo court of the world!

[Igel]

2. No, that's the ICC.

One thing: They are the highest court in the US and their precedents are binding on all other courts, both superior and inferior. (Which terms also have their own definitions, neither of them in the least bearing on virtue or merit. Just authority within the court system.)

Congress can create lower courts but cannot create a court superior to the one that's 'supreme'. No inferior court can bind a superior court. A superior court can't bind the highest court. That is, the one that's 'supreme'--those versed in Latin and some French would know that's what the word meant at the time. "Best" or "all-controlling" or something like that being dominant to English speakers is later in meaning.

Their precedents bind lower courts and to a great extent the rest of the government; it's law, not ethics or morality and to confuse the two sets of things is not a good practice.

Everything else is just insisting on taking the text of the Constitution out of context, which is strange because every state has its own 'supreme court' that binds the lower courts in those states and only those states just like SCOTUS binds lower courts in the US.