What is most interesting is what the political Left passes off as “progressive,” and what kind of intestinal fortitude it must take to not only come up with their ideas, but also jus- tify them. It appears that Liberals have been doing quite well in finding ways of position- ing themselves in the judiciary, the media, university and college faculties, and in polit- ical office. But what is not so obvious, at least until just recently, is the Liberals' under- standing that they are in a small minority and quite unable to affect the changes they want by simply explaining what they want and why.

Most Americans aren’t in any frame of mind to accept, let alone buy, what the Left is selling. That being the case, the Left has stepped back from pushing for referendums, and instead is inculcating and instilling its ideas and beliefs in our young sons and daughters attending colleges and universities, subjecting America's youth to Leftwing Liberal political indoctrination and thereby prepping young people to accept the Left’s notions, carrying on this indoctrination program in an effort to stem the outrage that would ordinarily follow a judicial decision that goes against not only the U.S. Constitu- tion, but also common sense.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. Once the Supreme Court justices decide, by majority vote, on a subject, that’s it. The decision of the Su- preme Court becomes the law of the land, and there is virtually nothing that can be done, short of a constitutional amendment to change the Court's ruling. Now, it appears that even the slim option of a constitutional amendment is no longer available.

Not that there can be no more amendments to the Constitution, mind you, but it appears that the Constitution of the United States is not the only thing that governs the highest court in America. For most of America, that may come as a shock. For most of us, it has always been understood that the sole function of the U.S. Supreme Court was to deter- mine whether the statutory law or other subject in question was “constitutional,” to de- termine whether the legislative statute passed by the legislature or other action taken by government was in agreement with America's basic, fundamental law--the supreme law of the land in the United States of America, namely, the provisions of the U.S. Consti- tution.

Not anymore. While many of us remember being taught about the seminal 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison, from which the Supreme Court became an equal branch of govern- ment, it now appears that the Court wishes to become not just the “arbiter of the Consti- tution,” but the maker of laws--laws which are, in effect, “amendments” to the Constitu- tion, as they bear little resemblance to the original document and its 27 duly proposed and ratified amendments. In short, the Supreme Court aspires to become a constitutional convention in continuing session--an unelected supreme legislative and constituent body with unlimited power to make and remake America's fundamental law, an all-powerful body continuously amending and revising, often radically, the supreme law of the land in the U.S.A.

The majority of justices have decided to look at foreign and international law and seri- ously consider incorporating some its provisions into future U.S. Supreme Court deci- sions interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The justices, in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives,” adding: “Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change.” Five of America’s nine Supreme Court justices agree with her. They said so in their decisions regarding the Texas law that banned homosexual acts and in the death penalty case involving mentally challenged individuals. Only three justices of the Supreme Court still believe that it is American law that should govern Americans.

Justice Scalia has said that it is not the function or duty of the highest court in the land to “impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.” Yet, that is exactly what is happening. What is most interesting, though, is which “foreign moods,” are considered necessary to impose on Americans. Islamic law, which is taught to well over one billion of the earths inhabitants, certainly isn’t considered fashionable enough. Nor are the laws of Africa and most of Asia. If there is any doubt, check out how they feel about the death penalty or homosexual acts.

No, the “Progressives” on the Supreme Court, according to the New York Times, chose to “consult” with French President Jacques Chirac about the death penalty in July, 2003. It would logically follow that the “Progressives,” prefer the attitudes and mores of the elitist West Europeans, rather than the rest of the planet, including the majority of people in the United States.

What is particularly troubling is not that the “Progressives” on the U.S. Supreme Court have forgotten what their job description is and are pursuing their own agenda, nor is it particularly troubling that they are now openly expressing their dissatisfaction with only having the U.S. Constitution as their sole benchmark in determining the legality, or con- stitutionality, of various statutory laws and other governmental actions.

What is so troubling is the fact that the other organs and levels of American government and the population of the U.S.A. are letting the Supreme Court majority get away with the endeavor to transform America's basic law, the fact that we are allowing the Liberal Leftist Supreme Court justices to continue their “progressive” activities, with no one calling for impeachment hearings. In fact, the craziest part of it all is that Californians, not exactly a bastion of Conservative ideology, have demanded and gotten a recall elec- tion of their Governor because they believe he is not performing satisfactorily in the job he has.

But the rest of America sits idly by while the “progressives” on the United States Su- preme Court decide how Americans should conduct themselves based on what the French think.

Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California, with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analyt- ical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine, and is now a California attorney. His articles appear in numerous periodicals and on numerous websites. He has been the featured guest on KTSA News Talk Radio. Walfield has his own website, USA NEWS & VIEWS, located at www.usanewsandviews.com. His email address is as follows: paul.walfield@usnewsandviews.com

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.

POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS

POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE

Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy

INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

---

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity