Dear Friends,
It seems to me, if a Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision isn’t unanimous, then it should be revisited every five years until 100% agreement is reached. This would minimize the power of faction to pervert the Constitution. Absurd rulings like Korematsu, Buck v. Bell, and Wickard, among others, would be revisited until a true consensus was reached. These rulings have been amazingly corrosive to our republic. Moreover, they highlight the arbitrary nature of law in the US. The Nazis cited Buck v Bell and Korematsu as legal precedent for their crimes, imprisoning people without charge and forced sterilization, all of which are legal in the US based on SCOTUS rulings, (depending on the President’s political favor). Proving why every SCOTUS decision should be revisited, unless it’s unanimous.
If we look back at Supreme Court rulings that have created a mess of our Republic, they have all been contentious. Generally five to four, leading to a wholesale rewriting of our contract with the government. Today, what was unthinkable in the founding years is normalized, so we don’t even notice. The First, Second, and Fourth Amendments are effectively neutralized by SCOTUS. The income tax forces us to expose our personal papers for the perusal of government officials. The Second Amendment is a shambles. Even as our Right to worship, and speak as we wish, was canceled during Covid and by literal government censorship under the guise of quelling “Misinformation.” Making our modern legal system a perversion of the one our Founding Fathers had in mind.
During the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the defendants cited SCOTUS rulings as legal justification for their actions. Which is pretty damning of those rulings… even forgetting the actual American victims of those decisions. Like when SCOTUS ruled against honoring treaties with indigenous Americans, because they had land at stake. That was another decision that should have been revisited every five years, until settled. Another absurd decision, proved by the fact it’s been revoked, was Roe v. Wade. Where the judiciary voided the Constitution to allow for abortion. Leading to millions of unborn babies killed. Chevron was another ruling that’s been revoked because of its harmful effects. Any decision by SCOTUS that’s contentious should be revisited every five years.
Rulings by SCOTUS that are contentious proves a real question of law is at stake. A five to four ruling means the question isn’t settled, far from it, such a ruling means the question is hotly debated. Which is a poor foundation to rewrite our Constitution wholesale. The reason I chose five years is because that’s how long it takes for a ruling’s effects to be felt. Plus it’s not long enough for despotism to gain a toehold. Wickard v. Filburn has been in effect so long the perversion has oozed to every corner of government. Disentangling it would be a monumental task should anyone be brave enough to take on that hydra. Had it been revisited every five years, it would be gone in short order. Showing us why justice forces us to revisit contentious rulings every five years.
Justice isn’t the natural state of mankind. Even a cursory glance at history proves that fact. Places and times where justice has partially invaded the legal system are singular in their prosperity. Confucius taught about the “Sage kings,” whose reigns were characterized by justice, human heartedness and… prosperity. As we can see by more recent history, every group of human beings is subject to political manipulation, leading to law being used as a means to power, instead of as a means to justice. As unwise people will kick down Chesterton’s fence, shallow judges will rule based on ideology, instead of law, precedent, and our Constitution. Such malpractice is now the norm. Which wouldn’t be possible had SCOTUS revisited their absurd rulings every five years until they were settled.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
