To youm, that’s whom.
James Jackson Kilpatrick pointed out years ago that the United States Supreme Court was described as “handing up” a decision. I have no way of searching this out in a reasonable amount of time.
Today the courts “hand down” decisions. They “hand down” a decision that overruled an overwhelming vote by the California plebescite against giving benefits to illegal aliens. They “handed down” decisions that enforced racial busing against the wishes of eighty to ninety percent of the public, including a majority of blacks.
Before the World War II Generation gave us Obedience Training, “We the People of the United States of America and OUR posterity” were the only purpose of the Constitution. Before the World War II Generation was obedience-trained, “We the People of the United States of America” were the only source of authority the Constitution had.
But now the guys in robes hand DOWN decisions to us. They ARE the Constitution.
We are allowed to debate questions until the guys in the black robes hand a decision DOWN to us. Then they not only make the Final Decision, they can put us in jail for contempt of court if we discuss it.
#1 by Mark on 04/05/2005 - 7:03 am
Bob, you say: “We are allowed to debate questions until the guys in the black robes hand a decision DOWN to us. Then they not only make the Final Decision, they can put us in jail for contempt of court if we discuss it.”
I’m confused. Have the courts found anyone in contempt for discussing their rulings? I must not be getting the point because I’ve not heard of anyone going to jail for discussing a supreme court discussion. Could you give an example or clarify the point a bit?