The Supreme Court’s Mistaken Notion of a Swing Vote

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases, speaking hours after President Trump’s second nominee Brett Kavanaugh secured enough votes to be confirmed.
“It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position – it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it,” Kagan said.
With all due respect, Justice Kagan, there’s absolutely zero inherent purpose laid forth in our United States Constitution for a “swing vote.”  It’s a misnomer, simply a thing that sometimes happens, and most certainly not any sort of thing to strive for or achieve.  In fast, such thinking is rather toxic to a healthy judicial process.
1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour… – Article III, Section I
2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. – Article III, Section 2
Your oath of office is two-fold,
5 U. S. C. § 3331: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Revised Judicial Oath (28 U. S. C. § 453): “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
The idea of a “swing vote” originated not from any basis in law, but rather, merely out of happenstance, whereby on some issues the Supreme Court is otherwise split.
Quite frankly, when a Supreme Court is often split, that’s a very BAD sign. It means Justices are voting along party lines and NOT in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and their oaths of office like they’re SUPPOSED to.
A healthy Supreme Court will general find most justices voting one way whereas you sometimes have stragglers voting in opposition or with Constitutionally informed dissent. Convoluted dissent, as has been quite comment with Democrat Justices, is not healthy, as the Constitution is not convoluted. It takes a great deal of convoluted thinking and wording to make it appear as if B is the better course of action when the Constitution clearly says, “do A.”
Once he gets his feet wet, Justice Kavanaugh should help keep you on the straight and narrow path of our Constitution which you swore to uphold.
Justice Kagan, you also stated the following
“All of us need to be aware of that – every single one of us – and to realize how precious the court’s legitimacy is,” she added. “It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process.”
Always or even often requiring a swing vote seriously, if not severely undermines the court’s legitimacy, grossly tarnishing it’s reputation of being impartial and neutral, because it clearly communicates the court is not judging an issue on its own merits, but rather, is merely judging an issue along party lines.
Again, healthy courts are NOT “evenly balanced.”  They are firm, with conviction, and Constitutionally sound.  Just as constantly unanimous votes are unhealthy, so to are constantly split votes.  In a nine-member court, decisions with 6, 7, and 8-member majorities tell me most justices, regardless of party, are doing their job.  Your job, Justice Kagan, isn’t to find some “center” or any sort of “middle ground.”  This isn’t kindergarten.  Your job is arriving at the objective, non-partisan and Constitutional truth of a matter.
Good luck, and may God be with you.
In closing, please use this graphic to ascertain when the court has been most healthy, and when it has been saddled by partisanship:

Supreme Court Injustice Sotomayor

The U.S. Supreme Court, specifically Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has overstepped her lawful authority.  She is subject to our Constitution, not above it, and has no authority to either change the Constitution or ignore it.  Her oath of office states in part:  “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Our Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Many previous Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the restriction against preventing the free exercise of religion applies to the every branch of the federal government, including the Supreme Court itself, as well as to the states.  Thus, not only is she violating our Constitution, she is single-handedly ignoring Supreme Court precedence.

With that thought in mind, I would like to share with you the following, and ask you how Justice Sotomayor’s decision to force honest, God-fearing Christians to support murdering unborn children does NOT violate our First Amendment’s restriction against prohibiting the Green’s free exercise of their religion?

I would also like you to consider, and accept the true meaning of the term “civil disobedience:”  It is an act of doing what is right, true, and moral by God, as peaceably as possible, instead of conforming to an evil in this world.

Finally, I would remind you of the provision for Supreme Court Justices given in Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution:  “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”  I would argue, gentlemen, that ignoring the Constitution, ignoring prior Supreme Court precedent, and forcing U.S. citizens to support murder of unborn children against their Constitutionally-respected religious beliefs is very BAD behavior.

Justice Sotomayor’s behavior since she took the bench has been a blight on American integrity.  She has continually sided with the other bad apples on the court who continually vote against the Constitution, and in favor of eroding our individual rights and freedoms while helping to build precisely what our Founding Fathers fought to avoid:  Big, Massive, Government i.e. a Socialist State.

Sotomayor needs to be removed from office.

In closing, I would like to share a link to the website which details the Green’s predicament, their decision, and the massive up-welling of support they have experienced and will continue to experience from the American people:  We must obey God rather than men!

UPDATE:  Only June 27, 2013, the full body of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made the following ruling:

In its opinion, the circuit court held (1) that RFRA applies not only to human beings, but to a corporate entity like Hobby Lobby that is wholly owned and operated by humans who share a religious belief; (2) that this HHS Mandate is a substantial burden on orthodox Christian belief; and (3) that it is not authorized as a measure that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Note:  RFRA:  “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”

I find it very interested they held that it applies to corporate entities, as that’s precisely what the Supreme Court did when it gave personhood rights to corporate entities a couple of years ago.  If the Supreme Court attempts to undermine this application, they will then be forced by the American People to remove the personhood rights of corporations.  You can’t apply a legal concept one way in one situation, then try to apply it in a diametrically opposed manner in another.


Honest, God-fearing Christians!