A conservative activist’s assertion that justices who support ethics reform are “treasonous” raises obvious questions about to whom, exactly, he thinks Supreme Court justices owe their loyalty.
When I first heard of Shackleford’s accusation that Kagan was being “somewhat treasonous” to suggest the Justices should be subject to an ethics code, I thought the guy hadn’t really thought through what treason, taking overt acts to overthrow a sovereign to whom one owes allegiance, means. But, after reflecting on this court’s “jurisprudence,” in supplanting its own fact finding for that of Congress, giving fictive entities full personhood, adopting the Stuff That Bugs Me Doctrine (sorry, that should read the Major Question Doctrine), engaging in spurious history to justify preferred outcomes re: guns and abortion, and refusing to defer to people who actually know what they’re talking about, treason seems appropriately to describe the allegiance the court thinks it is owed.
Great points and well put. All federal judges (all federal employees other than the President) swear (or affirm) that they "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and they "will bear true faith and allegiance to the" Constitution. 5 U.S.C. 3331.
People who serve in our armed forces fulfill their duty with courage and conviction against foreign enemies. Judges must fulfill their duty with courage and conviction against domestic enemies.
Judges’ knowing violations of their oaths are “worse than solemn mockery” of the people and our Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.). Such judges “usurp” powers “not given” (or expressly withheld) by our Constitution, committing “treason to the Constitution.” United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, n.19 (1980) (Burger, C.J.) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)).
When I first heard of Shackleford’s accusation that Kagan was being “somewhat treasonous” to suggest the Justices should be subject to an ethics code, I thought the guy hadn’t really thought through what treason, taking overt acts to overthrow a sovereign to whom one owes allegiance, means. But, after reflecting on this court’s “jurisprudence,” in supplanting its own fact finding for that of Congress, giving fictive entities full personhood, adopting the Stuff That Bugs Me Doctrine (sorry, that should read the Major Question Doctrine), engaging in spurious history to justify preferred outcomes re: guns and abortion, and refusing to defer to people who actually know what they’re talking about, treason seems appropriately to describe the allegiance the court thinks it is owed.
Shackleford wants more corruption, and the present corruption to be kept intact. What a great guy!
Great points and well put. All federal judges (all federal employees other than the President) swear (or affirm) that they "will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and they "will bear true faith and allegiance to the" Constitution. 5 U.S.C. 3331.
People who serve in our armed forces fulfill their duty with courage and conviction against foreign enemies. Judges must fulfill their duty with courage and conviction against domestic enemies.
Judges’ knowing violations of their oaths are “worse than solemn mockery” of the people and our Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803) (Marshall, C.J.). Such judges “usurp” powers “not given” (or expressly withheld) by our Constitution, committing “treason to the Constitution.” United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, n.19 (1980) (Burger, C.J.) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821) (Marshall, C.J.)).
This is a great piece! Thank you!! 🙏🏻