Why The Left Feels SCOTUS Decisions Are Extreme & Border Claims

Underground USA

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may have noticed that Democrats believe the US Supreme Court is making partisan decisions. They attribute these decisions to the political leanings of the justices and the presidents who appointed them. But the reason for their disillusionment is actually self-imposed. They have succeeded in deceiving themselves.

First, it is wise to refresh our memories on what, specifically, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is charged by the US Constitution with doing; what its duty is to the Constitution and the people of the United States.

The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and liberties of American citizens. By interpreting the Constitution and resolving legal disputes, the Court ensures that the federal government operates within the bounds of its authority and that individual rights are not violated.

As we all know, the SCOTUS is the highest federal court in the country. It serves as the ultimate authority on matters of constitutional and federal law. Its primary duty is to interpret the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, ensuring that federal and state laws adhere to the edicts and principles set forth by each.

In interpreting the United States Constitution, SCOTUS has the exclusive purview of determining the meanings of constitutional provisions, resolving disputes over its interpretation, and striking down laws that violate constitutional principles.

The High Court is also tasked with reviewing decisions made by lower federal courts and state supreme courts, allowing it to ensure that lower courts are correctly applying federal law and consistently interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain cases, meaning it is the first and only court to hear a case. This typically occurs in disputes between states or cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or consuls.

In the matter of judicial review, the SCOTUS has the authority to determine the constitutionality of federal and state laws. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the Court can strike it down, rendering it unenforceable.

In all of this – and in recent times, believing there is fidelity to this can be challenging, Supreme Court justices are constitutionally obligated to remain impartial and unbiased in their decision-making. They must base their rulings on the facts and the law, free from personal opinions and ideological or political influence.

Further, the Justices are obligated to provide clear and well-reasoned explanations for their decisions, allowing the public to understand the Court's reasoning and ensuring that the judicial process is transparent and accountable.

Perhaps the High Court's paramount obligation is its absolute responsibility to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. This includes safeguarding freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to due process and equal protection under the law, among the other inalienable rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

The Court has a responsibility to ensure that all individuals have access to the legal system – regardless of ideology or station, including whether they are in either the public or private sphere – and that justice is administered fairly and impartially, according to US Constitution and how it applies to any matter before the Court.

Ever since the emergence of 20th-century progressivism, the idea that the US Constitution is malleable to the point of radical interpretation has become an issue. Many feel that those who favored Fabian socialism, fascism, and outright Marxism in the Wilsonian era – which wasn’t unheard of at that time – initiated the pathway for the strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be cast to the wayside.

This was the era when the idea of a “living Constitution” fell prey to a definition that facilitated transformative change into constitutional interpretation; the beginning of the politicization of the Judicial Branch through the application of political ideology.

Which leads me to the reason why Democrats – and especially the Far-Left in the Democrat Parrty – believe that the SCOTUS has veered drastically to the ideological Right in recent years.

The fact is this: Progressives, democratic socialists (yesterday’s Fabian socialists), and outright Marxists have moved the political center so far to the actual left of the ideological center that anything resembling a fidelity-bound interpretation of the Constitution seems radically Right – radically conservative, especially for those who don’t understand the progressives' long-term transformative agenda.

And that agenda is roaring ahead at full-throttle. Today, we hear constitutionally illiterate elected officials openly and overtly transgressing the Separation of Powers, stating that they want to impose Legislative Branch-created ethics rules and limitations on the High Court. We here far-Leftists and neo-Bolsheviks, screeching about expanding (packing) the court to affect radically ideological decisions to social issues that shouldn’t even be in the government’s purview.

In speaking to The Washington Post, US Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said:

“...they should adopt the same code of ethics as every other federal judge in America. Those nine members of the Supreme Court are being treated differently. In fact, they're being exempt from requirements that face members of the Congress and other federal judges…My initial reaction was to turn to the Chief Justice and say, ‘Please move on this now.’ I approached him with the subject for the first time 11 years ago. He said he wasn't going to do anything. So, I reached out to him in writing and said ‘would you appear before our committee or work toward the goal of coming up with the standard.’ He's basically refused.”

Roberts was correct in refusing Durbin’s request specifically because of the existence of Separation of Powers. To appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee would have been to subjugate the constitutionally co-equal Judicial Branch to the Legislative Branch, thus obliterating its co-equality. So, Durbin’s request was either one made from a point of constitutional illiteracy or was an overt ideologically-based political power grab.

Either way, would Roberts had acquiesced, the Supreme Court would have lost the trust and confidence of the American people because the principles of justice, fairness, and impartiality would have been clouded by the politicism of the Legislative Branch.

As we move forward, understanding that it is the Judicial Branch – the Supreme Court – that determines constitutionality, not the political partisans of the Legislative or Executive Branches, it is easier to see the opportunistic manipulation of the far-Left in interfering with the Separation of Powers.

The US Supreme Court is the final word on constitutionality, and unless it revisits a previous decision, its word is the final word, no matter what the issue.

Truthfully, when one understands our Constitution and how our government is supposed to work, the far-Left’s presumptions about their authority to coerce the Supreme Court on any level and any subject are nothing more than the whiny temper tantrums of spoiled, self-righteous ideologues not getting their way.

Cry me a river.

Really Joe? No Criminals AreKnowingly Coming Over The Border?

In light of Joe Biden’s bizarre rant about how secure the Southern border is in the United States and how the Border Patrol “supports” his candidacy, a deeper look into how the Immigration & Customs Enforcement arm of the Border Patrol is handling detained criminal illegal immigrants is in order.

Recently, according to an article in The New York Post, dozens of criminal illegal immigrants who were involved in the violent border insurgence and riot near El Paso, Texas, last March have been granted release into the United States by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This alarming turn of events raises questions about the agency's capability and, in fact, commitment to enforce the law and protect the nation's borders. It also raises eyebrows about the veracity of Joe Biden’s insistence that the Southern Border is secure.

When asked during the debate about his administration’s performance in the Southern border, Biden replied:

“Because we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement that not only changed all of that, it made sure that we are in a situation where you had no circumstance where they could come across the border with the number of border police there are now. We significantly increased the number of asylum officers. Significantly – by the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position.

“In addition to that, we found ourselves in a situation where, when he was president, he was taking – separating babies from their mothers, putting them in cages, making sure the families were separated. That’s not the right way to go.

“What I’ve done – since I’ve changed the law, what’s happened? I’ve changed it in a way that now you’re in a situation where there are 40 percent fewer people coming across the border illegally. It’s better than when he left office. And I’m going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the – the total initiative relative to what we’re going to do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.”

As an aside, the official spokesperson for the National Border Patrol Union posted a short statement on Biden’s claim of endorsement on X, that stated, “To be clear, we never have and never will endorse Biden.”

Putting that aside, the insurgence and riot incident outside El Paso took place on March 21 and was captured on video. Over 200 criminal immigrants engaged in violent clashes with Texas National Guardsmen who were feverishly trying to safeguard the area. At least one criminal migrant was seen stomping on a service member’s knee during the melee in an attempt to cripple the officer.

Despite the severity of their actions, despite the criminal behavior of these insurgents, El Paso County Judge Ruben Morales, a Democrat, dismissed criminal charges against all involved in May. As a result, these individuals were released from state custody and handed over to ICE.

But that’s not the egregious part of this story. An ICE official revealed to The Post that a significant number of these migrants have been permitted to remain in the country. The agency reportedly released 43 of these criminal insurgents – fighting aged men who actively participated in the riot.

An ICE spokesperson defended the decision, stating that the agency makes release choices on a "case-by-case basis."

However, a source from Homeland Security who fears retribution from higher-ups in the Biden administration cast credible doubt on the legitimacy of ICE's decision-making process.

The source suggested that the agency's standards are arbitrary, citing its inability to deport migrants promptly and the necessity to reserve detention centers for the most dangerous individuals.

The source explained to The Post, "Sometimes we arrest a child molester and he gets released because of housing space. Or the charge is not egregious enough to keep him or her in custody."

While 43 migrants have been released, ICE has managed to keep 32 in custody pending court hearings, 105 are in detention awaiting deportation, and another 43 have been successfully deported. These numbers, however, do little to alleviate concerns about the orders the agency has received from the Obama 2.0 apparatchiks of the Biden administration.

These are the kinds of people who the Biden administration and far-Left Democrats believe will contribute to our society? This is the quality of immigrants we want in our country. No. We are not under any obligation to open our doors to the trash of the world. We have a right to set expectations of conduct for those who seek to enjoy the freedoms our country has to offer.

Establishing a reasonable set of criteria for immigration shouldn’t be a cultural – or literal – death sentence. But that’s what the far-Left is instituting. Under Obama 2.0 and Joe Biden, that’s the sentence that’s been handed down to the American people.

The fact that criminals – and that’s what the insurgent riots are, criminals and on several levels – the fact that these criminals who engaged in violent border riots against law enforcement agents are now roaming free within the United States is a testament to Joe Biden’s intimate relationship with dishonesty and deception.

After the debate, the sycophantic Left on social media started to foam at the mouth about how the mainstream media – their loyal allies in deceiving the American people – wasn’t adequately fact-checking Donald Trump’s statements. Yet they completely ignored – in just this instance – two provably blatant lies about one of the subjects the electorate is most concerned about.

If you are undecided or a thinking Democrat, consider this. You may not like Donald Trump’s demeanor; he may be a bit rough around the edges for you, but the man isn’t peeing on your head and telling you it’s raining. Joe Biden and the Obama 2.0 apparatchiks are gaslighting the American people – or trying to anyway – and doing it while the truth is playing out right in front of our faces.

Honestly, who wears the spirit label of “convicted felon” better?

Become a paid subscriber to comment

Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriber

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe