Against Judicial Engagement


A co-equal branch of government without any operational ability.

Not that reality will matter to those who seek chaos in North America.


7 responses to “Against Judicial Engagement

  1. This article appears to be taking a lot of questionable things for granted. For example, the notion of an independent judiciary – as if justices cannot be made a bitch of a sufficiently motivated executive branch. Honey pot, anyone? What are the chances no judge will have any connection to pizzagate?

    I keep getting back to panarchy. Let various groups (tribes?) of people live in their own polities. There is nothing like personal experience – allowing them to get what they desire – to give them a learning experience. For example, socialism looks pretty good in the short term, until you have to live in it for a while. These various judicial theories fit well into the panarchy framework as well. Let some polities have originalist judges, let others have “living constitutions”.

  2. When the states lost the ability to direct Senators ( and thereby remain represented in the fedgov. sphere) the states lost the ability to effectively remain independent of, and a power opposed to, the fedgov. The whole Constitutional balance is entirely tilted towards the fedgov. the states are it’s vassals, and the SC just does whatever it wants. Return the Senate to the State Legislatures, abolish the Federal Reserve, and cut the lifetime appointment bullshit for the SC. When you get a new President, you get a new SC, unless the President wants them to stay, some, or all. Each President gets than option, regardless. No judge remains on the bench after the age of 75. That’s it. SC judges are also subject to a national referendum/recall. One up or down national vote. Majority rules.

  3. I am a supporter of Judicial engagement myself, but the fact is. The Supreme Court does not have any armored divisions so enforcement comes down to what the other branch decides if,when, and how to enforce.

  4. Contrast this interesting take on the Freemason Framers. They tried to make “we the people” God — the source of natural law.

    But a true democracy (one that allows even 80 IQ savages to vote) will always create positive law that violates natural law.

    Communism is the enemy of nature.

    • Freemasons do not believe that “we the people” are gods. The Masons believe in one great creator of the universe. While they do believe that men should seek perfection they understand that it cannot be obtained. Thats the symbolism of the incomplete pyramid. It is only through the great architect (the all seeing eye in the capstone) that we obtain completion.

      Nor did the founders attempt to create a “democracy” they were quite clear in their disdain for that form of government.

  5. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.