On Biden's Move to Restrict the Supreme Court, Hamilton, and Federalist No. 78

Biden is trying to restrict the Supreme Court by imposing term limits, and other constraints, because he and his constituents disagree with some of its recent judgements. The leftists "news" organizations, now nothing more than propoganda arms for the Democrat Party, are obediently fueling the flames with innuendo and false claims against Supreme Court judges.

But all of those rulings were proper, and legally correct. To rule in any other way would have been to move in contradiction to the Constitution:

• By overturning “Chevron” they correctly removed the ability of federal agencies to be effectively the legislator, the accuser, and the judge, and there now must be a trial by jury,
• By overturning Roe v. Wade, they correctly returned power to the States to decide a complicated issue, and eliminated a blanket right that made legal, any abortion, any time, anywhere, for any reason, clearly not a right defined in our Constitution.
• By ruling that Presidents of the United States are immune from prosecution for official acts while President they correctly stated the obvious, that a President cannot be prosecuted for, let’s say, taking out the chief Iranian terrorist, Colonel Soleimani, by blowing up his car with him and his crew in it, via an unmanned drone. The Court’s ruling probably doesn’t even cover the current charges against Trump because his actions were likely not “official acts.” Other courts will decide.

Alexander Hamilton, foresaw, nearly 250 years ago, as if through a looking glass, the current-day moves of Biden and the Leftists, and added safeguards to our system to protect against them, the very safeguards that Biden by his own admission seeks to remove. 

Hamilton lays out his reasoning for the independence of the federal judiciary in the famous Federalist No. 78.

Every single paragraph is brilliant, but here are some relevant extracts:

"For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'

“…The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority...Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing

“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void…

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

“This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community."

These questions we are grappling with currently, were soundly answered two centuries and a half ago. But most people, instead of reading and pondering this famous paper, a masterpiece, and patiently consuming it as a fine, well-provisioned dinner, they prefer to snack on absurd, unhealthy, partisan sound bites from CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, at best, or simply tweets at worst. They are not willing to do the work.

God Bless our Founding Fathers, and God Bless America.