Supreme Court and Judicial arrogance

Bruce Walker, frequent contributor to American Thinker discusses the problem we have put up at Junk Science many times, Federal Judges who usurp the Constitution by their pretense that they shall decide what the constitution means.

Then they impose their preferences, their personal preferences based on their ideology or worse–social and political pressures.

Here’s Walker, doing a good job.

Here’s Junk Science on Judicial arrogance and misconduct and why the constitution should be inviolable, particularly against the whims of modern law school grads and their faculties.

You will see in the JS esssays repeated reference to two erudite and insightful Con Law Professors that are my favorites for exposing the judicial arrogance and deceitful power grabbing of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices–Lino Graglia and Robert Nagel.

Here’s the essay by Nagel that convinced me to read his books and his essays whenever possible.

And Lino Graglia is a great man indeed, and recognized as one of the con law experts of all time.

Here is his short essay on why originalism is not in effect in con law–judges do what they damn well please and then dress it up with excuses and tortured analysis.

The Great Lino speaks in an essay for a Con Law colloquium for the Law Journal of the Federalist Society:

You might note Graglia and Nagel are both justly cynical about their colleagues at the Bar and on the Bench–I am an inactive attorney for 36 years and share their negative sentiments.

One last recommendation–read The Dirty Dozen, by Robert Levy (CATO) and William Mellor (Institute of Justice) on how the Supreme Court has eviscerated the constitution, justices violating their oath of office to uphold the defend the constitution. The Dirty Dozen are 12 of the most important examples of judicial activism and legislation from the bench.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Olsen, Raoul Berger have all written essays and books that provide compelling arguments on the problem of judicial activism and unconstitutional jurisprudence initiated by the SCOTUS.

IN the past collusive lawsuits and the problem of Chevron jurisprudence have been a focus of JunkScience postings along with the problems of junk science and issues of scientific evidentiary admissibility. All of these abuses of judicial power violate the constitution when they allow judges to become law makers and givers, rather than deciding cases by applying the law made.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s