Justice Gorsuch Speaks Out
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a staunch defender of judicial independence, recently issued a stern warning against the sweeping changes President Joe Biden proposes for the Supreme Court. In an era where political pressures and popular opinion often sway the pillars of government, Gorsuch’s words serve as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s vital role. His message? “Be careful.”
Biden’s Bold Proposals
Just last week, President Biden flipped the script by endorsing significant reforms, including imposing 18-year term limits on Supreme Court justices and introducing a mandatory ethics code. While these ideas might sound progressive to some, they strike at the heart of judicial autonomy—a foundation laid by America’s founders.
The Essence of an Independent Judiciary
During an interview that aired on “Fox News Sunday,” Justice Gorsuch didn’t mince words when he discussed the essence of an independent judiciary. He posed a powerful question: “What does it mean to you as an American?” His answer underlined the importance of the judiciary for those who find themselves out of favor with the current regime or the majority. When the government comes knocking, Gorsuch argues, that’s when you’ll want a “ferociously independent” judge and jury by your side.
Not Just a Political Stance, But a Warning
Gorsuch made it clear he wasn’t trying to wade into political waters or influence the ongoing presidential race. His reluctance to comment directly on the specifics of Biden’s plan highlights his commitment to staying above the fray of political debate. However, his cautious tone and emphasis on the judiciary’s independence are loud and clear messages to both the public and policymakers.
Other Voices and Opinions
While Gorsuch remains measured, other figures like Justice Elena Kagan have shown some support for reforms like an enforcement mechanism for ethics. This points to a broader discussion within the judicial ranks about how to balance transparency and independence. However, Gorsuch’s focus remains unwavering: protect the judiciary from becoming a tool manipulated by shifting political winds.
Gorsuch’s Personal Touch
Amid these heated debates, Gorsuch is also promoting his new book “Over Ruled”, which delves deeper into his views on the law and the Constitution. His book tour and interviews serve not only to discuss legal philosophies but also to remind the public of the judiciary’s critical role in a free society. His offhand remark about looking forward to fly fishing after his term ends adds a personal dimension to his professional stance, illustrating his long-term commitment to judicial principles over political or personal gain.
Final Thoughts
Justice Gorsuch’s warning to “be careful” about altering the structure and function of the Supreme Court isn’t just a casual remark—it’s a clarion call to all Americans who value their freedoms and rights under the Constitution. As tempting as it might be for some to use the legislative branch to adjust the judicial branch when disagreements arise, this path could irreparably harm the checks and balances that define our government. Gorsuch’s steadfastness in protecting judicial independence is not only commendable but essential in ensuring that the court remains a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.
We want to hear from you! What do you think about Gorsuch’s stance and Biden’s proposals? Comment below with your views and insights.
BEWARE THE TRAP!
“[T]hey measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” (2 Corinthians 10:12)
To measure one biblically unqualified candidate as opposed to another biblically unqualified candidate is, at best, foolish.
The only standard by which all candidates should be measured is by the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law, especially its mandatory biblical qualifications.
But the constitutional framers fixed it so that will never occur when, in Article 6, they banned Christian tests and thereby mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders.
America’s consequently known nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, incompetents, immoral reprobates, and outright criminals for her civil leaders ever since.
And nothing is going to change about this until Christians and patriots become courageous enough to stop participating in the corrupt government and its unbiblical election process and, in turn, begin promoting the Bible’s government of, by, and for God and, in turn, His moral law as supreme.
For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at bible versus constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Book page.
For more, regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land.
Find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the sidebar and receive a free copy of the 85-page “Primer” of “BL vs. USC.”
WOULDN’T YOU KNOW IT – the only thing biblical – the absence of term limits and they want to add them.
That’s not to say that term limits under today’s unbiblical judicial system would not sometimes be a good thing – that is, if the greater of two evils is replaced with the lesser of two evils. Frankly, it’s a no-win situation regardless which way they go because under the Constitutional Republic’s biblically egregious government, it’s always the evil of two lessers regardless who replaces who:
“…Article 2 provides four-year terms for presidents. Amendment 22 limits presidents to two terms. Most people would concede term limits are a good thing when evil men rule. But the question Christians should be asking is whether term limits are Biblical. Consider Solomon’s wisdom:
‘For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.’ (Proverbs 28:2)
Yahweh intends the term of a ruler who keeps His law to be protracted:
‘And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book … that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom….’ (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)
“The Constitution provides that the United States be ruled by ruler after ruler, which is part of Yahweh’s judgment against our sinful nation. Although term limits prevent corrupt officials from serving any longer than their terms allow, they permit them to serve as long as their terms allow. Term limits are a Band-Aid on a self-inflicted wound [inflicted with Article 6’s Christian test ban whereby mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders were also eliminated]. Under Yahweh’s law, provided a man remains Biblically qualified and mentally capable, he would not need to be removed from his bench. Only when a judge – for whatever reason – becomes biblically unfit, should his term end….”
For more, see Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html
For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land.”
The only thing I believe should be imposed on federal judges, including SCOTUS justices, is a mandatory retirement age. When the concept of lifetime appointments was introduced, death by old age was mid- to late-fifties. Today, there are judges living into their eighties and nineties: DO NOT try to tell me their age is not affecting their judgment. There have been justices with chronic illnesses: DO NOT tell me the illnesses or the treatment for those illnesses was not affecting their judgment.
It would destroy Judicial independence and the balance of power in our government if the proposal were to ever become reality. Fortunately it would require ratification by at least thirty-four States. So, we should concern ourselves with more immediate problems. like the economy and inflation. Q: if she were to become President, Would Harris nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court?
Another horrible idea in a long list of horrible ideas!