Obama Nominated a Statist to the Supreme Court

I heard a lot of professional comedians saying "OMFG! Obama nominated a racist to the Supreme Court!" Racism is one of those made-up evil fnords, designed to divide the cattle.

Group A thinks that group B is going to hurt them. Group B thinks that group A is going to hurt them. Both group A and group B say "The State needs more power, to protect us from the other group!" The bad guys love such fake debates.

A much more serious problem is that Obama nominated a statist to the Supreme Court. "This judge is a statist!" is a much more important criticism than "This judge is a racist!"

If you ask any State-employed judge "Should there be a government?", the answer will invariably be "Duh! Yes!" All politicians and lawyers are statists. This question is never seriously debated in the mainstream media.

In general, the Supreme Court tends to make decisions that increase the power of the State.

I found this quote from the hearing (via Yahoo) to be pretty offensive.

He pointedly asked Sotomayor, "What binds you when it comes to a fundamental right?" Graham asked.

"The rule of law," Sotomayor answered.

He tried to pin her down, asking whether the right to bear arms is such a right and would her personal view guide her judicial thinking?

Sotomayor said "the court will look at its older precedent," and consider the question as a matter of law.

"Respect precedent" (or stare decisis) superficially sounds reasonable. Good decisions made in the past should be a guideline for future good decisions. In practice, this means "The Supreme Court has made decisions in the past that eroded individual freedom. Those decisions are not subject to review."

"Review past decisions for errors!" is something that a Supreme Court judge is *EXTREMELY* reluctant to do. In practice, this means that once a bad decision is made, it becomes permanent and irrevocable. This is the same type of Statist thinking that prevented the Catholic church from admitting "The Earth is not the center of the universe!"

The State equals God. The State is infallible. If people are allowed to believe "In the past, State high priests (the Supreme Court) made a mistake!", then that opens the door for all sorts of things to be questioned. That last thing the bad guys want is for people to start thinking for themselves. The illusion of State infallibility must be maintained at all costs.

As the above quote indicates, the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that State restrictions on gun ownership are allowed. Therefore, that decision is no longer subject to review, even though the language of the Constitution is pretty clear regarding the right to own a gun. Once the Supreme Court ruled "Restrictions on gun ownership are allowed!", then that restriction becomes permanent and irrevocable.

As another example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the IRS and Federal Reserve are perfectly legal. They won't seriously consider reviewing this decision. That would be an admission that the Federal government has been operating illegitimately for nearly a century.

The "rule of law" vs. "natural law" debate is really an excuse for pro-State trolling. A Supreme Court judge is concerned with "What is legal?" instead of "What is morally acceptable?" In a corrupt insane political system, "What is legal?" has become nearly completely divorced from "What is morally acceptable?"

The job of a Supreme Court judge is to make up fancy-sounding excuses that justify an expansion of State power. The Supreme Court is an evil fnord providing the illusion that someone is protecting individual freedom.

All three branches of government are controlled by lawyers. That fact alone should eliminate the illusion that they're separate and independent. A State bureaucrat will always make the decision that increases his own power.

That's one big disadvantage of a monopolistic State over a free market system. In a real free market, if someone is unreasonable, then you'll buy from a competitor. Via taxes, people have no choice but to pay for the State. If State enforcers behave unreasonably, you are SOL.

The entire Supreme Court nomination process is one big evil fnord, designed to provide an illusion of legitimacy for actions of the State. At no point will you hear any statist ask "Is taxation theft? Are these laws bad, even though they're recognized as legal?"

The biggest criticism of *ANY* politician is "He/she is a statist!" This is never publicly discussed. If you're the type of person who understands "Government is a massive criminal conspiracy!", then you certainly aren't going to waste time getting a degree as a lawyer or working as a politician. You can study natural law without wasting time on studying insane State law.