Dear Friends,
It seems to me, for all the bluster in the conservative press about how great Amy Barrett is, I worry she could turn out to be another John Roberts. They have essentially the same pedigree. Roberts got his conservative credentials by clerking for Rehnquist… not from tons of constitutional rulings. Now he is on the Supreme court he has shown who he really is, an anti constitutional progressive who cannot be counted on to vote for his own life, let alone the life of a baby, if it conflicts with the demands of his handlers in the progressive faction. Amy Barrett doesn’t have a deep history of constitutional rulings either and her primary qualification is her clerking for Scalia. We see that having clerked for Rehnquist had no effect on Roberts, so why should we expect Barrett clerking for Scalia, should be any different?
The legal system is not noted for producing constitutional zealots. Rather it produces lawyers directly opposed to the fundamental ideas our Constitution contains. They disdain any limit on the power of the administrative state. Roberts twists logic into lovely children’s balloon toys to kowtow to the professional government. Like he did to save the Affordable Care Act. What irony to name it that? Today lawyers know that we live under arbitrary rule. How can they not know, they are involved with it, every day. How can we tell? Ask any attorney at random, if it is likely a pro se litigant will win… no matter how strong their case? The lawyer will laugh derisively and reply, the pro se litigant doesn’t stand a chance. Which means, our courts rule based on political favor, not justice.
The court system is every bit as corrupt as any third world country ruled by a tin pot dictator. In our case the tin potted dictator is the progressive faction. The Judicial Branch believes it has more in common with the professional ruling class in the bureaucracy than with the filthy masses. There is no one like an overly educated egg headed, ideologically captured bureaucrat at a dinner party, am I right? The arrogance flows from a PHD progressive like water over Niagara Falls. The examples of the corruption are rife today. The Flynn affair will go down in history as one of the biggest acts of conspired corruption possible. The court system simply refuses to let the man go. Even after astounding revelations of FBI misconduct. Crimes that would sent you or I to a penitentiary for life.
Too many justices nominated by “conservative” presidents have turned out to be progressives instead. It seems to be a pattern. This pattern theory is bolstered by the overt corruption in our court system and the clear disdain many lawyers have for you and I. Meanwhile, not a single judge nominated by a progressive, has failed to be an anti constitutional zealot. Using our Constitution as a means to destroy itself. If she does turn out to be a progressive we will have lost another opportunity to turn the ship back to a constitutional course. Not the first time and I am sure not the last either. The Branch that was tasked with keeping us on a constitutional course has abandoned it for oligarchical power. That power is tempting, and so no progressives turn it down, and more than a few conservatives lust after it.
So, I am not hopeful about Amy Barrett. She may be a great person as it appears she is. But that doesn’t make her a great constitutionalist. I pray she follows her faith and original intent and stops the feeding of Moloch. I hope she seeks to lower the role, power and scope of government but I shudder to think if she is another John Roberts. Roberts and the anti constitutional faction, installed by Clinton and Obama, would be all too happy to rule the US Constitution is an outdated document, and so no longer carries the weight of law. Remember, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a speech in Egypt, if she was writing a Constitution today, she would not use the US model, but the Marxist South African one instead… Let’s pray Ginsburg’s replacement is a bit more enamored of our Constitution.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
