Mises Weekends Live! Allen Mendenhall on our Terrible Supreme Court

This is Mises Weekends with your host Jeff Deist. (Loud and enthusiastic applause) That was, that was pretty well trained. That was like, that was like a sitcom audience right there. But, anyway. It is the weekend of our Supporter Summit and as you can see, we’re filming Mises weekends live. Our topic this week is the Supreme Court. We just couldn’t avoid it with everything that’s been going on with Kavanaugh and this really horrible politicization of everything we’ve seen. So, our guest is a friend of mine Allen Mendenhall. Some of you have seen him on the show before talking about recent Supreme Court nominees. He’s an Associate Dean of a Law school here in Alabama, Faulkner University in Montgomery. He is, of course, a lawyer himself. He’s also a PhD in addition to that. So, he shares that with Neil Gorsuch, who’s the most recent person to be appointed to the court. In that, he’s both a JD and a PhD. He went to obtain his PhD in English across the street right here at Auburn. He’s a big Auburn guy, but he’s also somebody who knows a lot about the ins and outs of the Supreme Court. So, with that said, Allen great to see you. Well, it’s good to be here. I want to tell you a very quick funny story. I don’t know if you realize this but the last two years you’ve had me on the show the weekend before Mises University and I’ve always thought this was a good thing for me because the week before the students get there they get to see Mises Weekends and maybe know who I am and I get to meet them on there. Well this year shortly after I arrived in the building this young girl came up and said oh hey, I just want introduce myself. I’ve if I follow your work it’s so great to meet you and I kind of felt proud. I thought “This is great!” She came back about 15 minutes later. She said “I’m sorry. I want to apologize for earlier.” And I said “Apologize? Apologize for what?” she said “Oh, I thought you were Guido Hulsmann.” So, I sort of deflated after that. (Laughter) You know with everything going on with Kavanaugh, I mean the big picture first is that we’ve got these nine monarchs in these black robes and at this point the American public sees them as a form of super legislature. They see them as Republicans and Democrats, left and right they see them as spoils of a presidential Candidate who wins. I mean this is a horrible situations. There is no longer pretense that this is some sort of impartial arbiter. Well right now and the particular confirmation hearings were are under to, the stakes are about as high as they’ve ever been for Supreme Court nominations. When Justice Scalia died and the Republicans didn’t put forth any votes on Merrick Garland. But then when Gorsuch was nominated, there was this idea that you are exchanging sort of a Scalia for a Scalia with a Gorsuch. He was not, you know, he was an originalist. He adhered to natural law actually in ways that Justice Scalia himself did not. But, the stakes weren’t as high because you were replacing one conservative with another. Now that this is Kennedy’s retirement and Kennedy is known as sort of the swing vote. And, so, the stakes are very high and the left wants to oppose this nomination with whatever. It’s interesting because of the four or five people that trumpet narrowed his list down to Kavanaugh was the most moderate of them all and he was my least favorite choice of them all by far and the least likely of the four or five to draw this kind of hysteria, but hysteria we have. For those who don’t know today the Senate Judiciary Committee consists of 21 people, 11 Republicans, 10 Democrats did did vote Kavanaugh out of committee so that he can go before a full Senate. That was done on condition by Senator, Jeff Flake, that an FBI investigation go forward. So, some other senators like Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin in West Virginia said “yeah, this is a good idea”. What’s going to happen is Trump has recently within the past hour and a half ordered this FBI investigation. It will take place over the course of next week and that will take place before the full Senate vote on confirmation. So, it is a very strange moment. I’d never thought that we would be sitting there and a Supreme Court confirmation hearing going through high school, yearbooks asking about drinking games, flatulence jokes. I mean this is the strangest, this is the strangest confirmation hearing that’s ever been. That I that I can think of. I mean obviously Bork was a, wasn’t a wild thing. But, this one, the level of sort of petty detail is unprecedented. Right. But from our perspective the American people aren’t going to accept this, in other words, you got to hand it to the left. There’s gonna be, an if this guy gets on the court, there’s gonna be an asterisk by every case that he’s the swing vote on. Well, I think that’s right. I think that’s the left tactic in general. There’s this idea floating around out there on the left that Donald Trump’s presidency is an illegitimate presidency and that therefore anything goes for the cause. That you can do anything. You can violate the law, you can be violent, you can go into restaurants and run people out, you can break windows, you can vandalize, you can destroy private property. Whatever it takes to get this illegitimate president out of office. And I see this is sort of a spillover of that attitude we’re seeing strange crazy things going on politically that should not really be taking place in Supreme Court confirmation hearings. I mean, to get to where we’ve gotten in Supreme Court confirmation hearings is amazing. It used to be, I think when George Washington under the Vice in consent in the Senate, I think the first time he was seeking advice against it. He said ‘I intend to nominate blah blah blah’ and the Senate said ‘sit back we advise that would be a suitable nomination.’ And that was it. You know, now we’ve got these spectacled hearings and you know they’re just televised chaos. And there’s a lot of grandstanding and that the Senators don’t know this but they actually just make fools out of themselves up there and reveal how much they don’t know, which is entertaining, but it’s also depressing. But the thing is from our perspective the Supreme Court has wildly exceeded its constitutional bounds. Yeah, it operates wildly in excess of its actual jurisdiction. But, that being said, even though it has failed to constrain itself. It also hasn’t really constrained the executive or legislative branches either. It lets Congress run over article 1 section 8 and it lets, obviously we’ve seen the 20th century imperial executive. So, it rubber-stamps all three branches. Well, in them I mean the most frightening thing is what I would even call the fourth branch was the administrative states. You have all these executive agencies that are creatures of legislation, yet, they exist within the executive branch. They promulgate rules and regulations that are essentially law. So, they exercise lawmaking functions. They have their own courts, so they they interpret their own rules and you know they have executive head. They’re like many governments that sort of flow outside the accountability of the normal political processes because none of the congressmen and Senators, they don’t want to touch some of these things because they, you know, if they go after those and there’s push back it’s, you know, it’s controversial so they don’t want to touch it. And they’re not regulating themselves and the court, the judiciary, hasn’t hasn’t been intervening in those decisions, often agency decisions. You hear a lot about Chevron Deference and all this kind of stuff. But, yeah, I mean, we’ve got a vast administrative state that’s out of control and it’s got to get reined in. I’d prefer that Congress go out there and do its job and start reining it in but I don’t have a lot of hope for that. Well, it’s interesting, you know, you’ve probably seen these these man-on-the-street things that Jay Leno’s show used to have where people couldn’t name the three branches. I wonder how many Americans can name a single justice first and foremost. But, more importantly, don’t you think kids are taught that the Supreme Court is supreme over other branches of government? Not just over lower federal courts, but it’s the supreme arbiter over Congress and the president. Yeah! So, rather than the Constitution being the supreme law of the land you have nine lawyers who together operate as the supreme law of the land which, in effect, is how it operates because, you know, under Cooper v. Aaron and in different sort of Supreme Court precedents the Supreme Court is irrigated to itself the powers to be the the final arbiter of what the Constitution says or doesn’t say. So, you’ve got the Supreme Court opining on all kinds of issues that aren’t actually in the Constitution anywhere. They’ve just developed out of layers and layers and layers of case precedent and that, to me, means that you’ve got the judicial branch legislating. But, of course, if we look at article 3 of the Constitution there’s no a textual support for the idea of judicial review. Right. So, a lot of people argue that Marbury v. Madison was kind of made-up Judicial activism and that we’re living under this rubric, whereby, the Supreme Court is deciding what’s constitutional and what isn’t and that’s wildly extra-constitutional. Yeah, I mean, I think judicial review is best implicit in the Constitution. Now, it also raises question about what you mean by judicial review. So, if you mean that the courts are obligated to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution I would agree with that. But, if you’re saying that the Supreme Court can rule in areas about which the Constitution is silent and thereby create new rules and create new laws where otherwise they should be silent, that’s totally different. That’s not judicial review, that is a that’s a separate legislative process. Then you have in the case of federal judges in the US Supreme Court, you have judges making laws without any accountability whatsoever to the voters because, you know, they’re appointed to life. They enjoy tenure for good behavior, which has been interpreted to be a lifetime appointment and so, they essentially rule without any threat of being voted out of office the way a legislator would. Well, what do you think of Bader Ginsburg being is openly partisan? We’ve never seen a Supreme Court justice who basically says ‘Well I’m not gonna retire because Trump’s president’ or who says things, she just said something at, I wanna say maybe Georgetown Law School a couple days ago where she was talking about the #MeToo movement and she was being just overtly political and almost kind of daring anyone to challenge her or do anything about it. Yeah, I guess the kind thing to say would be that, maybe she’s, I don’t want to use the word senile, I was trying to avoid that one, I was trying to be nice and not use that word. But, I think she’s letting down her guard and she doesn’t quite have the faculties that maybe she once had and I think that that could be verified through, you know, first-hand accounts of people that know her and interact with her. But, yeah, I mean it’s a matter of she’s now just showing her true colors rather than keeping them to herself. But, what’s to stop that after a lifetime appointment? That’s not an issue. Well, I mean and that’s the other thing I mean the Constitution and you know, if Ginsburg were to be in some vegetative state there’s no, there’s no mechanism for removing her from office besides impeachment and you know, it’s adding insult to injury to impeach someone that does become just mentally incompetent. Now, she’s got extremely intelligent clerks and staff you know, her opinions come out and they’re cogent and intelligent even though I disagree with every single one. But, you know that it raises a good question about you know, putting an age limit and you know. Here in Alabama we have an age limit of 70. I actually think that’s way too young. There’s discussion and legislature about raising it to 75, which is better. I know plenty of people that are in their 80s, that would be excellent judges. So, you know, numbers can be pretty arbitrary. But, you know, I actually like voting for judges. I like the way we vote for judges here in Alabama. I think that’s great. I think it holds them accountable. I don’t think it puts partisan pressures on them the way that people accuse the system of doing. They say ‘well, you know, you’re gonna have cases come before these judges and they will involve parties that are tied into different kinds of money and special interests and the judges will vote the way they vote just to, just to get them, get the results and stay in office. And I haven’t ever seen that personally, i would say that maybe there are instances in which the justices decide to affirm a case with no opinion or to deny a writ of certiorari without an opinion in order to avoid those kinds of political dances. But I don’t ever see judges just going out and, at least in this state, I haven’t seen that happen. So, maybe there are instances from other states, but I’m just not familiar with them. Of course, what we’re really talking about, what a lot of the acrimony this week is about is the culture wars right that they, these nine justices, have become the de-facto deciders of some of these contentious issues and I think chief among them are abortion and guns. Which are deeply divisive issues in America. You know, I would argue it like, if you mean the Republicans have rolled over on this, they’ve accepted this, they’re no better. In other words, they’ve just decided that well, we got to get our guy or gal in there. Yeah, and that they’re they’re culpable in this well, and yeah, I mean that’s, that’s what politics is, the Republicans and the Democrats going back and forth trying to figure out who’s going to get the reins of power so that they can assert it over the other party. And every time they do it they set an even more dangerous precedent that the other side gets to then use and it’s just a, it’s a vicious snowballing cycle and it just gets worse and worse. And we’re at a stage now. I mean, I’m not sure politics have been as bad since probably the 60s and then before that maybe the 1860s. I mean, maybe it’s time that we start considering peaceful partitions and you know, peaceful separations and decentralization. Well, we were talking about this last night if you can talk to someone out either side of the aisle and they’ll say, you know, ‘that that other 40% of the country are the worst people on earth. They’re absolute scum.’ ‘They watch Fox News all day. I want them dead.’ Okay, well let’s have secession. ‘What are you a neo Confederate?’ In other words, we’re avoiding the obvious and humane way. To ratchet down some of this hatred is to have some degree of federalism where things are decided, you know, not in this top-down manner by these nine people. But I was just wondering, here in the audience, how many people in this room would really object if let’s say a Bible Belt state wanted to have you know Fairly restrictive abortion laws and a progressive state? Like Massachusetts or California wanted to have fairly, I guess we call liberal abortion laws that permitted. I mean would anyone in this room object to that kind of system? That just saying that we could have that, you know, that the gun laws that in your in Manhattan it might not be the same as in Barrow, Alaska. I mean, this idea of centralization of things being determined in Washington you see for 320 million people, you know, both parties are part of that. Yeah, I mean, I think more heterogeneity is constructive. You put ideas into constructive competition with each other you do them at the local level. You let communities self-regulate and retain their sovereignty according to their own cultural mores and standards and you do it as peace eliminate. That’s to the extent you can. It’s the non-aggression principle writ large and you try to Institute that as much as you can. That’s very difficult to do in the sort of Nationalized system we have where everybody’s competing over the mechanisms of coercion and which political party can take a hold of those and throw lightning bolts at the other one and how can we nationalize our project before the other side nationalizes its project. And that’s something that I wish conservatives would in particular rethink. Why do we always have to try to nationalize everything? Whether it’s, you know, DOMA or something else. Why would we, why would we turn something into a federal issue if we don’t have to? Because once you turn it into a federal Issue, you’ve lost. I mean somebody else is going to take the reins of power. But, there’s the savior complex, especially on the left, in other words, if you told left you could have far more of what you want here and now if you were just willing to accept it in certain parts of the country and willing to accept totally different rules in other particular country, I think a lot of a lot of people in left would say well, yes but we have to save the women of Alabama from those benighted Southerners who would take away their right to abortion. Yeah. There’s this kind of thinking. I am completely baffled by the left today because I don’t understand what the end game is. I don’t understand what the in state. I mean, you can look at a religion and say, okay, there’s an eschatology here. Or you can look at an ideology like Marxism that sort of got its own secular eschatology and say ‘Okay. Well, this is the end goal.’ This is what we’re working towards. I’m not sure the left has any idea what it’s doing. I don’t think it has any sense of purpose, any sense of history other than just to tear everything down and it’s an issue-by-issue basis. There’s an out of control identity politics. That is very strange and that contrary to some allegations like in Patrick Deneen’s failure of liberalism, which just has a totally wrong genealogy of liberalism. But, you know, he treats all this identity politics as some product of Locke’s thinking. And, to me, this identity is actually all about collectivism. It’s about people saying okay, there’s a group here, peer group here, i’m gonna choose to be part of this group and choose to be part of this group and because you know, gender and identity and all these things are socially constructed. I’m gonna conform myself to these standards and these standards and I would get to pick and choose and it’s a very collectivist project. It’s not an individualist project at all, but I don’t know what the left wants. I have no idea. You know, if you could say, for example, if you pose this question to a leftist if you said in what society would you be conservative? What is the society that you would like to see in which you’ve actually achieved everything you want? and you would want it to stay that way. Is there such a thing? Are you just constantly about blowing everything up? We have to progress. That’s what progressivism means. It means the past is bad. Yeah, it means better and that’s this idea that there’s, you know, you’re on the wrong side of history or the right side is if you know the history were some geometric thing that had sides and that there was a right side never, you know, never mind that history is populated of innumerable people, you know, people living and breathing flesh and blood with their own ideas, their own values, their own priorities who are trying to wrestle with whatever space they live in at that moment. And, you know, trying to eat, raise families and then to just dismiss an entire period of history as if they, as if it weren’t populated by real people with real struggles and conflicts. It is Incredibly intellectually lazy. It’s also dehumanizing. It’s dehumanizing. It is dehumanizing and I think that the left is really become the movement of dehumanizing. I think that’s what they try to do. I think they try to to caricature their enemies and, I mean, that’s what they’ve done with Kavanaugh and I like I say, I wasn’t a big rah-rah Kavanaugh person. But, I’m certainly not buying into the caricature of him that they want to construct so that they can just tear it down and cause rioting in the streets and violence. Well, here’s something that I think we will find irritating. Since, since Rehnquist died, and correct me if I’m wrong, all or virtually every Supreme Court justice has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale Law School. That’s correct. Okay, so we have these two schools in the Northeast. There’s a corridor between them Boston. What is it, New Haven, Connecticut? And you think about diversity, I mean, can we get somebody from Rutgers or Arizona or how about how about somebody from Notre Dame like Judge Napolitano on the Supreme Court? Yeah! No, I mean this, these, you know, and I know Tom Woods was emailing earlier about he’s on a discussion group from is OMA Harvard class and sort of the insularity of that is pretty remarkable. And this, just this assumption and this presumption that ‘we’re going to be the next set of leaders’ You know, where is this coming from? Why do, how did we get here? Wow, well I guess there’s so many factors, I’m not even sure I could be prepared to answer that question. But, Harriet Miers was not your typical Ivy League petty group pedigree. She was, I believe, she was Southern Methodist for law school. But, at any rate, you know, we all saw what happened with her, her nomination was withdrawn. But, she didn’t have support of a lot of the elites. The people that sort of populate the Republican establishment. And not all those people are Ivy league-educated either, but that’s what they prefer to see in their judges, and I think it’s not good. I don’t think the Supreme Court in any way is representative of the people of the United States and I don’t necessarily believe that just having those Ivy League degrees makes them any smarter than judges that come from, I mean, a Notre Dame. I mean you’re telling me that just because you went to Harvard or Yale you’re not as, you’re gonna be a smarter lawyer than someone from Notre Dame or someone from Georgetown or someone from Texas or Alabama and right here in the state. I’m not, I’m about to say something kind of good about Alabama which as an Auburn fan is tough to do. But, their top 30 law school, you know, even even Trump came out with this Sessions ‘is a country lawyer thing’ and tried to you know, portray him as some hick and you know, you can disagree with Sessions about a lot of things, and I definitely do, but he’s not this country bumpkin. He’s not an idiot and he knows what he’s doing. Even when it’s bad, maybe especially when it’s bad. Well, so let’s look at the Supreme Court from the perspective of individual personal liberties they have a pretty bad track record for the past few decades that are fresh in memory things like eminent domain, with the kilo case which was quite a famous case, drunk driving checkpoints, a lot of Fourth Amendment metadata stuff and to my knowledge the Supreme Court has not been too worried about FISA courts or opining on the legality of FISA courts. So, it has been, in a sense, a sort of a silent rubber stamp of that system. Are there any bright spots? Maybe guns or anything else where you could say hey, there are some, there are some areas where the Supreme Court has kind of kept us a little freer than Congress or a president would have. Well, yeah, I mean, I think, I think the case with the unions from last term Jacob Hubert, who is a former Mises Institute fellow, won a big case in the Chicago area against the AFSCME, which is a public employee union that was requiring people all to join the union as, I guess, as a condition of their employment and that was a big deal. So, anyway, I’m sorry for interrupting. No. No, that’s fine. I think, I mean, I think there are just areas I think there are actually some Fourth Amendment cases that are pretty decent. I think some people that take an originalist approach have found improper searches and seizures. Saying that you know the police have gone too far and I so you see some of that and that usually cuts across Partisan lines. You get some interesting votes where Judges that are the justices that are considered on the left and justices they’re considered on the right just disagree, yet, Gorsuch and Thomas writing competing opinions on the last term in a kind of interesting way. But, you know, on the whole I just think where we are as a society is so systemically problematic that, you know, a Supreme Court opinion tipping you one way or the other is just, you know, it may push you a little bit of direction and, you know, gives you five years of time before it alters it in some other way and, you know, I think we’ve got deeper problems that, you know, a Supreme Court opinion or two can’t fix. Well last question for you talk about. This nostrum, this shibboleth of precedent stare decisis, because on the one hand, we have the left is convinced that the GOP wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. They’re never going to do that. It’s the GOPs biggest fundraising issue. They will never ever, ever touch that. And that sounds cynical and I’m not saying it to be jokey or cynically. I’m just telling you that as someone who spent some time in Washington that it’s, it’s a bogeyman they need. Let’s just put it that way. So, there’s this idea that they’re gonna overturn precedent, but, yet, these are the same people who tell us the Constitution is a living document and it needs to be constantly reinterpreted to reflect the modern era. So, which is it? It’s just the standard political hypocrisy. I mean, if you look at, before you know, the Windsor and Obergefell cases, you didn’t hear the left saying: ‘well, we ought to uphold Bauer’s and follow precedent that’s just not how…’ So, it’s just one of those things. people want to uphold the precedents they like and they want to overturn the precedents they don’t like. The problem with precedent. I mean… So, stare decisis is an idea that developed out of the common law, and it’s this idea that the judges follow the the prior opinions of judges as binding and they And they reasoned by way of analogy through cases over time. Well, that sort of bottom-up kind of system doesn’t really fit particularly well in a country that’s governed by a written constitution under which all the laws, you know, from which all the laws emanate. That the British common law, you know, It is its bottom up. It’s customary; it’s from time out of mind; time immemorial it goes back centuries and it develops out of the inner everyday interactions of ordinary people and Judges and juries and the responses of their decisions to the immediate concerns of their communities. And none of that really plays Exactly the same way in a country like the United States where you’ve got a system of federalism. That’s different You’ve got different states in different state constitutions. You’ve got a Federal Constitution, you’ve got federal circuit’s, and federal districts, and everyone’s trying to figure out how these…, the you know, how these courts interact with with each other and there’s still so many open questions and our legal system people think that Procedurally, all this stuff is just settled. I mean we…, there are little lots and lots of things out there where judges just have no idea how things are gonna operate, they just rule and let the chips fall where they may and then let some upper, some Superior Court, figure out whether they did it right or not. And, So, we don’t really operate under system in which stare decisis operates the way it historically operated. So, yeah, you can use it. I think I mean, I think it’s, it’s a mechanism of restraint theoretically so prevents some Supreme Court justices from just going out there and and getting too crazy and inventing all the stuf… It at least keeps them textually grounded and narrows the range of acceptable rationale. But at the same time, as a political thing, I mean if a judge or justice wants to reach a particular issue, or rule in a particular way, they’re going to find a way to do it. I know that sounds like just stone-cold realism – but it’s the truth. I mean, if a judge wants a particular outcome, a judge can find a way to make that outcome happen. Well, I I think that, that about says it. It’s results-oriented judges. So, who needs a court? So, I say: Abolish these terrible courts. Let’s privatize arbitration mediation. Let’s thank Alan Mendenhall for his time. Have a great weekend. Subscribe to Mises weekends via iTunesU, Stitcher and SoundCloud or listen on Mises.org and YouTube

11 Responses

  1. AU Keković says:

    Thanks. I enjoyed this discussion

  2. Pablo Koinonia says:

    Nothing about this is strange.This is the left, and they have got into our education system. Welcome to Socialism.

  3. Michał Z. says:

    "Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification — that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero — that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions — that to withhold your contempt from men’s vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement — that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit — and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence."
    ~ Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 129

  4. Jae St Clair says:

    "9 Monarchs in Black Robes"; Gorsuch & Natural Law; Senate Judicial Committee 11 Repub 10 Dems approved Kavanaugh; "Supreme Court wildly exceeds its constitutional bounds + rubber stamps all 4 branches + administrative states"; Congress not regulating themselves, judiciary not intervening; judges nor accountable to voters; baffled by the left's end goal; identity politics is a right; the left in movement of dehumanizing; bright spots in supreme court are : public employee unions, 4th amendment cases; where we are in society we have deeper problems, Stare Decisis comes from common law – doesn't fit well w/constitution;

  5. Guillermo Nieves says:

    Don't deflate too much Mr. Mendenhall, I suspect that after this talk you'll be far better known among freedom loving people.

  6. marlene katz says:

    Our Constitution is NOT a "living" document. It is set in stone, does not change with the whims of tyrants in the government, and it is NOT "maleable" except to those who twist its meaning to justify their tyranny against the people.

  7. Tim Steinkamp says:

    I was hoping you would bring up The American Bar Association and ask your guest if he can talk against the Association. Or at least see what his feelings are for the welfare of the Country. Heaven knows a member does not want to get on the Bar's bad side. The lawyers in this Country are tightly controlled by their secret overlords on the boards of the thousands of sub Associations under The American Bar Association.

    In one state of the Union you have your pick of 176 criminal defense attorneys. That is not justice, especially when each of those attorneys can't upset the judge or they face disbarment and loss of income.

    The mission statement of the ABA is for the welfare (financial, social, mental, etc.) of its members. It says nothing about giving justice to the People of this USA.

  8. globescape says:

    These guys are smart but their naivete is abundant. Yeah, I'm for privatization but don't you think that will be just as partisan as we have now? Replacing one bureaucracy with another and calling it change is essentially the extent of change that fallen mortals are capable of.

    Of course, the SCOTUS justices are "supposed" to be fair and non-partisan. But when were they ever non-partisan? The Leftist justices are consistently left wing and the so-called conservative appointed ones are all over the place.

  9. Sean Kennedy says:

    This guest unfortunately seems oblivious to the larger context for the political rancor he laments.  From the perspective of the fact of a Deep State new world order agenda, to which the leadership of both major political parties are in service, a divide-and-conquer strategy (i.e. conquer the American people) is always in play.

  10. Uatu says:

    Privatize courts? lol, good one

  11. Michael Zimmermann says:

    The courts are the reason the country is a mess. The courts gave the power to corporations and government. If the courts had of kept the people rights above all we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *