The Supreme Court of the Untied States is walking the thin line
occupied by the Beast of Terror. It is reaching out to foreign
lands to shape American law and morality. Nine Justices rather
than 435 Congresspeople are deciding law. Do you believe
your children should be ruled by nine people? If
not, read this and write your Congressperson.
1, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 657
Stand Up Against The Beast of
Supreme Court Terror
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 1,
2003-- For the first time in its history, the U.S. Supreme Court
invoked in its majority decision an opinion of the European Court of
Human Rights, hallmarking an end to American justice being decided
within the borders of this nation, for this nation, and by this
nation. It's time to stand up against the Beast of Supreme
We must flip
the gavel on the Beast of Terror Supreme Court
The recent decision by the
Supreme Court means that American justice may be swooned not by the
opinions of American citizens alone, or what is solely good for
America, but rather be tilted one way or the other by world opinion,
specifically, European views.
This dramatic shift in leaning outside the borders of
America to seek support for a monumental decision regarding not only
the black letter law, but the moral law of regulating human behavior,
was ushered in by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's citation of a 1981 gay
rights opinion by the European Court of Human Rights in the majority
opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. That decision struck down a
Texas law that criminalized sodomy between consenting male adults, and
swung wide the barn door to not only legalizing homosexuality in
states where sexual practices among them are considered a crime, but
also struck a deep blow to those who oppose homosexuality on moral
Vehemently opposed to the use of European
precedent as credible foundations for any U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Justice Antonin Scalia accused the court of having "taken sides in the
is the "rugged individualist" fighting the downward trend of the
Justice Scalia has
taken the position of a "rugged individualist," fighting the trend for
the U.S. Supreme Court to bend an ear to growing foreign legal
developments and thus influence American law from decisions across the
sea. While Justice Kennedy attacked the sodomy laws of
Texas and other states where consenting adults risked prosecution as a
"meaningless" and "dangerous" and evidence of a Western consensus on
sexual privacy, Justice Scalia railed that the court should not impose
foreign views on American constitutional law.
The court's decision may have come about without
reference to Europe's trend, but the inclusion of it in the majority
opinion sets a precedent that Scalia considers a rub of the green.
It suggests that America's legal and moral isolation from Europe and
the world is teetering.
Many observers feel the use of "world legal
opinion" in shaping American law will oil the door for more laws to be
smashed such as the current federal ban on gay marriages.
By citing "outside nation's" as "evidence" of America's need to change
its legal and moral character, the Supreme Court is virtually changing
its title from United States Supreme Court, to United States
Influenced by World Court.
Will the use
of "world legal opinion" be good for America?
European law was shaped far differently than
American law, and for a variety of different reasons.
American law was designed to support and accelerate the
"individualism" of the state as opposed to the trend in Europe to
encompass all differences between nations. Essentially,
laws that take into consideration all the fringes of a diverse society
tend to water down the core of its foundations. Individuality is
lost in appeasement of all aspects.
Scalia, looking down the road, is fearful
the growing pressure on the Supreme Court to deal with critical mass
social and moral issues will not reflect the original intent of the
constitutional framers--and that was to cleave the influence of Europe
and other nations on the destiny of America.
Perhaps no more startling difference
between America's role as an individualist nation was experienced by
the lack of support of Europe, excepting Great Britain, in the recent
Gulf War. France, Germany and Russia virtually turned their
backs on supporting America's action, illustrating a chasm between the
Executive and Congressional Branch of government that differs greatly
from the Supreme Court's Legislative limb.
power of the Supreme Court has smothered the power of Congress
But the decision of
the Supreme Court to virtually "make law" by its decisions is another
strain to the American system of "individuality."
Over the years, the Supreme Court has been criticized as extending its
power from arbitrator to law maker. Under the
Constitution, only Congress can make law. But the growing power
of the Supreme Court to effect legal changes in the United States has
smothered and often strangled the power of Congress.
Unaware Americans not familiar with the balance
of power established between the Executive, Congressional and
Legislative branches are often not aware that nine Supreme Court
judges, each with his or her own political and moral viewpoints, have
amassed the power to strike down or invoke laws that impact over 300
Congress was designed to make laws, not the
Supreme Court. The power of a lawmaker, once the cartographers
of American laws and morality, is now emasculated by the "whim" of a
majority decision by the Supreme Court. Nine
justices rather than 435 congress people, pilot the ship of American
For the Vigilant in America, the Supreme Court
can become the Beast of Terror. Through Complacency, the
average American can look at the Supreme Court as the source of moral
and legal footing for our nation, rather than as a mediator, an
independent third party.
The original balance of the Supreme Court was to
provide checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative so
that the President could not railroad policies over the people's
wishes, reflected by Congress and the Senate or violate the
Constitution. However, the Supreme Court was never given
explicit power to perform judicial review. Their power is
Decisions made today, however, are more explicit
than implied. The world doesn't look at Congress as the
source of laws, but at the Supreme Court. Those who seek to
oppose a law try to influence the Supreme Court, not their
It's like a child who finds that Daddy doesn't
agree so he or she runs to Mommy to get her to overturn Daddy's view.
From left to right, seated: Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice John
Paul Stevens, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Sandra
Day O'Conner, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy - standing: Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Justice David H. Souter, Justice Clarence Thomas,
Justice Stephen G. Breyer ~
Such power vested in nine people is
dangerous indeed, especially since the appointment of a Supreme Court
Justice is politically charged, and each tend to represent factions.
In essence, the laws of America are based not on the representative
government of one congressperson per every 626,000 citizens (291
million population divided by 435 congress people), but by one Supreme
Court Justice for every 32.3 million people (291 million divided by
nine Supreme Court Justices).
Parents of Vigilance who think about a process
where nine people can decide the legal and moral laws of a nation,
especially when such laws and morality are being drawn not from the
well of American experience, but extracted from the European
consciousness, might want to stand up and be counted.
Complacency, however, will keep them seated.
Ignorance is bliss.
But, it is expensive.
Actions for future generations and write your Congresspersons
Decisions by the Supreme Court are simply ink on
paper. They can be changed. But, the problem
with change is that it takes so much effort that most people decide to
swallow the pill rather than try and change the medicine.
Citizens, however, need to be alert that legal
and moral decisions carved into American law are inherited by their
children, and their Children's Children's Children.
It takes Courage, Conviction and Right Actions
for future generations for people to sit down and write their
Congressperson a blazing letter simply stating:
Why am I paying you to protect me when the
Supreme Court is overturning all your laws, or making new ones,
that you are paid to protect?
As a Sentinel of Vigilance, duty-bound to protect
my Children's Children's Children's future, and my children's
present, I want you to stand up for my rights and their rights
and take back the power you've given over to the Supreme Court
by Complacent non-action.
Laws are for the Legislature, not the
Tell the Justices that the decisions made
by Europe or any other nation should never be used to influence
the decisions of my country, or my children, or their Children's
Tell them I said that if I were to
embrace the laws of Europe as better than those of America, I
would emigrate to Europe.
As them: "If European laws are
so great, how come so many of their citizens want to come and
live in America?"
Stop the Fear of, Intimidation by, and
Complacent Attitude toward The Beast of Supreme Court Terror.
Don't let the Supreme Court, nine people, take the role of 435
If you need Courage, Conviction and a shot of
Rioght Action in behalf of the children, take the Pledge
of Vigilance! It will stiffen your political spine.
Stand up for America, not Europe! And do it
(Your Signature--) PS--include Pledge of Vigilance
June 30--Be A Caesar Of Vigilance
- 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -