“A competition of the best ideas – that should be what Congress is about.” – Mark McKinnon

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said, “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by extraneous influences.” Alito reasoned that the court is obligated to rule on the true theory of statutory interpretation of the law. The court must make its decision on the broad statutory context and core intent of the original law. He asserted that without this consideration, the court could nullify key provisions of the law’s resolve.

Five days after Robert E. Lee surrendered and Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, Andrew Johnson gave immediate amnesty to the former Confederate states. They could rejoin the union as soon as they ratified the 13th amendment and wrote new constitutions that prohibited slavery and extended the right to vote to all Black male citizens. Shortly after these states rejoined the Union, they elected former Confederate lawmakers and military officers for Congress and to run state legislatures.

These members of Congress threatened to derail the Republicans’ Reconstruction programs that gave the right to vote to Blacks. The South had elected 23 Black Republicans to Congress and the Segregationist Democrats were determined to find a way to disenfranchise every Black voter.

“I have the votes in the Senate to kill any Civil Rights bill Republicans try to pass.” – Lyndon Johnson

In reaction to Confederate oppression of Blacks, the Republicans drafted the 14th Amendment. Its purpose was to guarantee, “All persons born in the United States are citizens and no state can pass any law that abridges their privileges or deprives them of life, liberty or property, or equal protection of the law.” Congress was empowered to enforce its provisions. Segregationist Andrew Johnson refused to sign it, claiming it targeted former Confederate solders, “which is what its intention was.”

The 14th Amendment is a linchpin for civil rights cases that have reshaped our nation. The 14th Amendment underpins many liberties Americans have today. That’s why the court has struck down most challenges to the 14th Amendment. Legal scholars claim the insurrectionist ban was to keep Confederate rebels from being elected to federal office. States cannot use it to take candidates off of the ballot. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of candidates the same as any other citizen.

When the justices unanimously ruled on Trump v. Anderson which restored Trump’s name on the Colorado ballot, they conceded that, “If we allow the states to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility it could lead to a chaotic patchwork of outcomes that would disrupt a national election.”

While all nine justices signed the decision, a bitter 5-4 divide lurked among them. The three liberal justices – Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson – furiously disagreed with the conservative justices. Justice Barrett issued a separate opinion but said, “our differences are far less important than following the law.”

“Anyone who thinks that my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken.” – Donald Trump

The liberal justice’s decision is based on “federalism,” which differed cogently from the rest of the court. They referred to the Trump disqualification effort as, “A sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint.” Their logic was a federal judge could order replacement of a president without Congress.

The liberal justices opinion reads like a bitter dissent. They think this ruling only applied to this case and the door is open for a federal judge to take out a president without Congress ruling that president is unqualified to serve.

“Liberals believe a lot of things that are not true.” – Jimmy Dore

The liberal justices’ objections echoed their progressive dreams about what they planned to do if Trump is reelected. They think the federal courts can consider Trump’s eligibility again after the election. They argued the majority shut the door on future enforcement of Section 3 by the states.

They claim that the court went too far in Bush v. Gore in deciding the 2000 election for George W. Bush. It discouraged federal courts from replacing elected officials they didn’t agree with on policy or politics. The liberal assent took issue with the ruling that states could not enforce Section 3 and, “Only who could enforce that provision instead – and that is Congress, and it is only Congress.”

“Our founders knew if Congress moved too quickly, it’d be unfair to the majority.” – Barber Conable

When these justices went to high school, they should have learned the history of our Constitution.

The insurrection clause insured Blacks that Congress would protect their rights from the former Confederates; nothing more. It is a federal law that can only be enforced by Congress. It did not give states authority to deny candidates a place on the ballot if they did not agree with their politics.

Liberal justices have to be reminded they are not politicians. And due to the separation of powers, they are charged with debating the merits of challenges to our Constitution and nothing else. They cannot rewrite the Constitution to please them through the back door by legislating from the bench.

Justices are supposed to make their decisions based on facts and law, but this is rarely the case when it comes to policy-freighting constitutional questions. According to a recent Gallup poll, the high court’s approval rating is at 40%, its lowest in history. Since Biden force fed Ketanji Jackson on the court by sacrificing Stephen Breyer, the liberal justices have become brazenly political.

“I hope to bring diversity to the Court with my decisions and life experiences.” – Ketanji Jackson

Justice Kavanaugh said, “The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.” Yet for years, the left has been using the Supreme Court to usurp the power of the elected branches to make unconstitutional laws passed by liberal politicians Constitutional, such as Obamacare. They have been using the court to defend liberal causes since 1956 when liberal Justice Earl Warren distinctly said, “It’s emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to determine what the law is.”

Just as Biden did with Stephen Breyer, progressives have started a movement to rid themselves of Justice Sotomayor, who is only 70 years old. They want to replace her with a young progressive before Biden leaves office so they are guaranteed another progressive justice for years to come.

Our founders explicitly wrote a Constitution that confers Congress with the power to enforce federal laws. The court and Congress have maintained that states may assist in enforcing federal laws if asked by a federal agency or official, but they lack the authority to enforce federal law. States may pass legislation similar to federal laws but they cannot violate or arrogate a citizen’s federal rights.

We are living in an dangerous time with socialist progressives attacking every traditional institution in America. Their goal is to control every branch of government and they must control the court to maintain total control of all other branches of government.

“The most contentious Supreme Court battles are when a Republican nominates someone to replace a liberal justice.” – Mollie Hemingway