Tags: Supreme Court | pierre larue

Pierre Larue: Is the US Supreme Court Collapsing?

supreme court building

By Tuesday, 29 December 2020 10:33 AM Current | Bio | Archive

European commentator Pierre Larue looks at the actions of our U.S. Supreme Court regarding our Presidential election and finds it perplexing that they did not address the legal questions that underpin the challenges of this critical election. He offers a critical analysis of a constitutional crisis that will have far reaching implications for generations. His dispassionate opinion needs to be read and considered by every thoughtful American regardless of our current national debate over partisan politics.

Pierre's original blog post: HERE

(English translation. Used with permission.)

By Pierre Larue

What has happened to the United States' Supreme Court? The central question seems to be: is the court there to interpret the U.S. Constitution, or is it there to distort the Constitution in order to keep up some appearance of political virtue signaling? The current problems seem to have arrived with the current Chief Justice John Roberts. During his confirmation hearing, Roberts assured everyone that:

"…Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them. … I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes [it is my job to referee the distribution of the cards.]" — [He transposed baseball to soccer as the Europeans do not know baseball].

The [soccer] terms, as in tennis, implied that he would be waiting for the facts of a case to lead him to how it should be concluded, and not the other way around. Problems began to appear with the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, which had argued that national health was not a tax. Mysteriously, Justice Roberts' tie-breaking opinion concluded that, abracadabra, it actually was a tax. The decision was flamboyantly unconstitutional: only the Congress, not the president, has the power to declare a tax, and of course the Congress had been nowhere in sight.

Next, during the recent coronavirus lockdown, the Supreme Court ruled, again mysteriously and in another 5-4 decision, that churches, no matter how large, could admit only 50 people, while bars, restaurants and casinos could hold up to 50% of capacity. It was a jaw-dropping breach of the First Amendment, which specifically protects religious freedom, "Congress," the text states, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …"

This winter, we have, in baseball terms, "strike three." The Supreme Court, reportedly because of fear of riots, not only declined to rule on what appear to be massive, diverse "irregularities," a polite term for election fraud, in the U.S. presidential election November 3; they refused even to see the evidence. According legal scholar Mark Levin:

"What did the Democrats do? They said well you know what, we have a good idea. A few months before the election they said … no signatures required, you don't need signature comparisons, you don't need a postal date and if the postal date is smudged, you are to count it anyway, oh and yes, even though election day ends on Tuesday at 8 p.m., we are going to extend it to 5 p.m. on Friday. … They had no legal or constitutional basis for doing any of that."

Levin also blasted the Court for refusing to hear the case:

"This is why we have a Supreme Court. Judicial Review for the purpose of upholding the United States Constitution. … When it [The Supreme Court] sits there and pretends that they're just observers. They decide they don't want to get involved. They have done a grave disservice to this country. They have not upheld the constitution and we will pay the price for this, in elections to come."

As a result, the U.S. looks as if it is about to inaugurate former Vice President Joe Biden, whose family are deeply embroiled in accusations of influence peddling, a charge spiked by most of the media, while the "umpires" [arbiters=referees] of the Supreme Court appear to be on an extended coffee break.

Lawrence Kadish is a nation wide developer and investor in commercial and industrial real estate. In the arena of foreign policy Mr. Kadish is on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute, has served as a senior advisor to Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT), and is a founding chairman of the Committee for Security and Peace in the Middle East. Mr. Kadish has also been a sponsor of strategic analysis of terrorism that cautioned on the eve of September 11th that radical Islamic fundamentalism was threatening our nation. He has served as a prior delegate to National Republican Conventions. He is founder and president of the Museum of American Armor, recognized as a dynamic tribute to our American veterans and a compelling education center. Read Lawrence Kadish's Reports — More Here.

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
The central question seems to be: is the court there to interpret the U.S. Constitution, or is it there to distort the Constitution in order to keep up some appearance of political virtue signaling?
pierre larue
Tuesday, 29 December 2020 10:33 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved