The Final Decision…Passion Blog #5

The Court is back in session.

You may be seated.

Over the course of the past few months, many different Supreme Court cases have been presented to you in order to  prove whether or not the Court is as just as it seems to be.

So, let’s review:

In Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court decided that certain undesirable people can be forcibly sterilized as it pertains to the public’s interest.

In Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court upheld judicial immunity, perpetuating its own tyrannical powers and betraying the idea of “no one is above the law.”

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the infamous precedent of “separate but equal.” A sentiment that allowed racism to flourish until the 1960’s.

In Virginia v. Loving, the Supreme Court finally allowed interracial couples to marry, after continuously upholding bans against it.

Provided with these facts we can conclude that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is guilty of injustice against the people of the United States.

To understand the reasons behind this corruption we must analyze the formation of the Court. The justices serve a life term in good standing. This solidifies the idea of “Tyranny of the Majority”, first explained by Toqueville. In the Court, if a simple majority (5) believes in a certain ideology, they will shape policy for a generation.

Nevertheless, we must give credit where credit is due. Without the Supreme Court, the integration of schools would not have occurred (Brown v. Board of Education). Without the Supreme Court, one man, one vote would not be an ideal (Baker v. Carr). Without the Supreme Court, the first amendment would be in shambles (West Virginia v. Barnett, Texas v. Johnson, New York Times v. United States of America). Without the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage would still be banned (Obergefell v. Hodges).

Perhaps, at the end of the day, the Supreme Court has made great progress in the name of equality and justice.

But WE THE PEOPLE must decide whether or not the benefits outweigh the risk.

It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that reform is long overdue.

A court that runs rampant, wielding judicial review, which is not mentioned in the Constitution but established by Marbury v. Madison, poses a danger to United States citizens’ unalienable rights.

During the current political climate the Supreme Court has fallen to the wayside. After Gorsuch’s recent appointment, the Court has once again faded from the headlines, as it always does.

But, we can’t let this happen.

For an institution that operates in the dark, away from the investigative light of the media, acts with absolute power.

And as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So, after the past few months, I ask you to make your decision as all Americans must. After reviewing the facts, after analyzing the cases, does the Supreme Court act on your behalf?

Does the Supreme Court still serve its intended purpose?

My answer: no.

The case is closed on the Court: guilty as charged.

Sentenced: reform.

Case dismissed.

15 Nov. 2017


Virginia Wasn’t Always for Lovers…Passion Blog 4

The Court is back in session.

You may be seated.

Thank you.

Continuing this case of unjustifiable injustice on the Supreme Court is the case of Pace v. Alabama (1883).

In this case the dishonorable Supreme Court upheld miscegenation laws, a precedent that stood until Virginia v. Loving (1967)

The Background of the Case:

Tony Pace, an African-American man had been living with Mary Cox, a white woman, for the duration of approximately two years.

Once the police discovered this violation, Tony Pace and Mary Cox were promptly arrested and charged with “living in a state of adultery or fornication.”

The exact law stated. “If any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years.”

If that is not the most ridiculous thing you have ever read; it is an abomination in the face of the ideals of the United States Constitution.

However, Tony Pace and Mary Cox were very intelligent in their way of existing as a couple. According to Alabama state law, interracial marriage was a felony, and an extramarital affair was a misdemeanor. Therefore, they short skirted around the ridiculous law of the land in the best way they could.

Alabama State Supreme Court:

Eventually, the case was tried before the Alabama State Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the Court upheld the charges of immorality. The Court’s biggest fear was the possibility of the birth of a mixed-race child, which in 19th century society, was beneath that of white people.

The United States Supreme Court:

Eventually, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court. Now, the Alabama state law clearly defies the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it punished people unfairly.

Nonetheless, the Court upheld the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court. The Court said, “Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.”

This interpretation of the law is a direct result of racist ideas and is a sad blemish on the history of this nation. It was a precedent that stood for 81 years.

In fact, this idea perpetuated into the very minds of the county courthouse in the Loving case. The court wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

It is evident that the Supreme Court is not as honorable as it pretends to be.

I petition this Court for a brief recess.



Plessy Was Messy

You may be seated.

The Court is back from its recess.

This long debate about the failures of the Supreme Court could not be made without the legal precedents set forth by Plessy v. Ferguson.

Now, everyone has heard of this infamous case, and if you haven’t, please go back to middle school. No Supreme Court case was more detrimental to the civil rights of millions of United States citizens post-Civil War quite like Plessy v. Ferguson.

But, before I rip apart the Supreme Court’s rhetoric, we must contextually analyze the situation.

In the Jim Crow South, many states had laws that separated Whites from Blacks in order to promote racial prosperity (sarcastically rolls eyes). Fortunately, people were pissed, and rightfully so.

Therefore, in 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy boarded a train and refused to sit in the section for Blacks. Then, Plessy intentionally informed a conductor that he was 1/8 black. The conductor told him to move. He refused.

Since he broke a Louisiana statute, he was promptly arrested.

He then petitioned his case before the Supreme Court in order to show that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against him 7-1. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion stating that the Fourteenth Amendment permitted such discrimination as “public policy”. The opinion stated that this law did not suggest that African-Americans were inferior, but they could be separated from Whites if it benefited the public. He wrote, “”We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”

Now we know that his reasoning is faulty at best, but thankfully there was a dissenting opinion. Justice John Marshall Harlan stated:

But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.

In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.

This eloquent piece of literature inspires the beaten conscious of the rational thinker. It seems that even then there were intelligent judges. However, this does not erase the fact that Supreme Court cases are won by a majority. It does not change the fact the precedent of “separate but equal” was in place until Brown v. Board of Education (1954). For without this case the Jim Crow South would have been harder to sustain.

It is easy to suggest that if “separate but equal” was stuck down, generations of African-Americans would have attended better schools and received better educations.

In short, this Court case destroyed every fundamental ideal that the United States stands for: equality and justice.

The Supreme Court decided to ignore the document they swore to uphold.

Therefore, the Supreme Court shows, by its own words, the corruption it harbors.

Anger from some audience members

Order in the Court!

This Court will dismiss for a brief recess.


A Judicial Pacht

The Court is back in session.

You may be seated.

During the last session of this [Dis?]honorable Court, we entertained a discourse surrounding the Buck v. Bell case. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Court was proven immoral. Such rhetoric and debate shall be perpetuated during this judicial sitting.

Now, an evil pact, a judicial pacht: Imbler v. Pachtman.

It is often stated that no one is above the law in the United States. It should be stated that this is a lie.

There is a dirty secret lurking in the depths of the judicial system. It is called judicial immunity, and is an impediment.

Through the case, the Supreme Court established the precedent that incompetent judicial officials get excused for infringing upon the rights established in the document they swore to uphold. The actions resulting in the case occurred in 1961. Paul Imbler was convicted by three eyewitness to have murdered a grocery store clerk. However, the District Attorney, Richard Pachtman, knowingly utilized a faulty testimony. After this came to light, Paul Imbler filed a suit against Pachtmas. Paul Imbler believed that his rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 were violated. The case made it to the Supreme Court.

Eventually,  the Court came to an unanimous decision in favor of Pachtman.

This decision highlights the idea that the judicial branch of government can’t be touched. This idea contrasts Alexander Hamilton’s belief, inscribed in Federalist #78, that the judiciary is the least dangerous branch of government.  However, the judiciary has become a behemoth of bureaucracy.

This behemoth is untamed by the natural order and replacement that comes along with election cycles. Article 3 of the United States Constitution dictates that all justices remain in their positions as long as they are in good standing. Therefore, the judiciary system is, and has been, the most tyrannical on some occasions. This is not common law England where the “king can do no wrong”. The judiciary is not exempt from public pressure. If qualified statesmen are not always at the helm, it is our civic responsibility to hold those in power at bay.

But, how can we do this if the system in place protects itself and preserves tyranny?

We must remain active in pressuring the government to obey our will. If we are the people, and our government is for and by the people, the government should obey us.

The judiciary has a responsibility to make civic engagement possible, as do all of the branches. The aforementioned case does not do this.

Within the context of both of the previous cases: Buck v. Bell and Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court has failed supremely. They have ignored the rights of people to their own bodies and the right to hold public officials accountable. Their actions have violated the pinnacle of democracy: liberty.

In the upcoming sessions, the Supreme Court will be held under the intense light of investigation. For too long the Court has escaped our view, operating without media coverage.

The Court will now recess.



“Oyez, Oyez, Oyez”…Oh No. #1

“All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”

The Court is now in session. You may be seated.

The case presented to you today, as well as others during the upcoming weeks, will be part of a series of cases highlighting grave Supreme Court errors. We, as The People, must not forget that the justices are fallible human beings. Forget what you may have previously learned about these ethical figures. Pay attention, because the Court hasn’t always handed down noble decisions like in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

First on the docket of dishonorable cases decided by the “honorable” court is Buck v. Bell (1927). 

At the beginning of the 20th Century, the United States engaged in an intense debate about the ethical implications regarding eugenics. A spirit of Social Darwinism swept the nation, as well as the world, inspiring the horrifying idea of killing off the weakest members of the human race.

*audible gasps in courtroom*

Audience Member # 1: But I thought that only Nazi Germany did that.

Audience Member #5: I can’t believe that our nation, which prides itself on the right to life, could have thought this.

Order in the Court please.

Well, it did. This idea wasn’t the worst part though. The implication of the idea into law was.

In 1924, Virginia passed a law dictating that any person found of mental disability could be compulsory sterilized. The state then determined that 18 year old Carrie Buck was mentally incapable and should be sterilized. A woman, barely an adult, robbed off her right to procreate because she was determined unfit.

Eventually the case worked its way to the Supreme Court.

It should have been an easy case. The Virginia statute violated Carrie’s constitutional rights. Carrie’s main argument rested in the notion that the law broke the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The law was not enacted to the public equally, but targeted a certain type of people.

On May 2nd, 1927, the Supreme Court ruled against Carrie Buck. It was determined by an 8-1 vote that the public’s welfare took precedence over a person’s bodily integrity. The majority opinion, written by Justice Holmes, brandished Carrie Beck as “promiscuous” because she conceived a child outside of wedlock. An important side note: she was raped. Holmes went onto state,“being swamped with incompetence . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Appalling? Yes. Shocking? No

As this series of proceedings continues in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will undergo the utmost scrutiny. Too often the judiciary escapes criticism from the public as it is held as a lofty, noble institution incapable of flaws. The greatest danger to the perpetuation of democracy is a politically idle public.

The Court will now adjourn.


Information taken from:

  1. Buck v. Bell. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from
  2. The Constitution of the United States of America
  3. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927). (n.d.). Retrieved September 6, 2017, from
Skip to toolbar