While in the vast majority of their constitutionally related writings the Founding Fathers were explicit that the judicial branch of government is effectively the weakest of the three, such is not the case with today's modern misapplication. Americans currently live under what is, for all intents and purposes, a counter-constitutional judiciocracy led by nine unelected, black-robed autocrats.
Over many decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine men and women are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything, and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.
This flies in the face of the framers' intent. It's also the very unfortunate reality under which we live. It is fully within the constitutional authority of the other two branches of government to rein in these judges gone wild, but, regrettably, no one, as of yet, seems to have the mettle to do what needs to be done.
Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "check" judicial activism, up to and including when justices illegitimately legislate from the highest bench in the land: "[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
That's huge. Unfortunately, to date, Congress has been either unwilling or unable to enact such regulations.
And so, when at least five of these nine justices speak, people listen. When they say, "Let it be," so it is.
That's why every so often a Supreme Court decision will come along that, for better or for worse, literally shakes our nation to its core. These opinions can have lasting implications that will affect public policy for decades, even centuries, to come.
Frequently, it seems, these justices, each a fallible human being, go desperately awry, ignoring history, case precedent and the very Constitution they're sworn to uphold. A few examples include the court's infamous Dred Scott slavery decision, its Roe v. Wade infanticide decision and its most recent Windsor mock-marriage decision.
Still, as they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. Occasionally, a majority of these nine justices get one right. Such an occasion occurred last week when, in its ruling on the Greece v. Galloway government prayer case, the high court reaffirmed all Americans' First Amendment right to public prayer – even sectarian prayer – in any government forum. This includes prayer led by government officials, whether acting in their official capacity or their private capacity, and even when praying "in Jesus' name."
It's difficult to overstate the magnitude of this ruling. It has literally wiped away decades of historical revisionism and church-state separatism by secularist judicial activists and atheist groups such as the ACLU, People for the American Way and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
In fact, its enormity is perhaps best measured by these organizations' utterly unhinged response. For instance, the always entertaining FFRF was quick to suggest a retaliatory "path forward" for all Christ-haters.
On its website, this Christophobic group, headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, posted an essay calling the high court's decision, "disastrous for state-church separation," and frantically warned, "This decision could be the equivalent of Dred Scott or Plessy for our [anti-Christian] cause."
The essay brazenly called for "mockery" of God, summoning atheists to infiltrate any public forum that might open in prayer and then to "voice disapproval … by booing, making thumbs down gestures, blowing a raspberry, or by making other audible sounds signifying disapproval. …"
"Citizens may also abruptly walk out of government proceedings and then make an auspicious re-entry as soon as the prayer has ended," suggested the group.
The stated goal? "Public mockery and ridicule" of Jesus Christ and all Christians.
Psalm 14:1 observes, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the FFRF for once again proving true these profound words.
A couple days after it came down, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer cut to the heart of this landmark ruling, writing at BarbWire.com, "[T]he Court in Greece v. Galloway changed the standard from 'endorsement' to 'coercion.' A violation of the First Amendment can now only be claimed if coercion can be demonstrated. …
"The Court swept away with a backhanded swat the ridiculous argument that merely being offended is sufficient to create a breach of the Constitution. Just because someone's feelings have been hurt does not mean there is some cataclysmic break in the space-time constitutional continuum. In a burst of brilliant, luminescent and concise reasoning, the Court flatly declared what we all know to be true: 'Offense … does not equate to coercion.' Feast your eyes on that. 'Offense … does not equate to coercion.'"
Indeed, this decision also swept away the church-state separatist sand from which the ACLU and other anti-Christian segregationists have built their entire fragile, cultural Marxist platform.
For instance, the ACLU has, in the past, absurdly claimed, "The message of the Establishment Clause [to the U.S. Constitution] is that religious activities must be treated differently from other activities to ensure against governmental support for religion."
Hokum, says the high court:
"The First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech. Once it invites prayer into the public sphere, government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, unfettered by what an administrator or judge considers to be nonsectarian."
"Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable," concluded the court, "and an Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person experiences a sense of affront from the expression of contrary religious views. …"
Of course, we're not really talking about "adults" here.
We're talking about liberals.