GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--July 1, 2003-- For the first time in its history, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked in its majority decision an opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, hallmarking an end to American justice being decided within the borders of this nation, for this nation, and by this nation.   It's time to stand up against the Beast of Supreme Court Terror.

    The recent decision by the Supreme Court means that American justice may be swooned not by the opinions of American citizens alone, or what is solely good for America, but rather be tilted one way or the other by world opinion, specifically, European views.
     This dramatic shift in leaning outside the borders of America to seek support for a monumental decision regarding not only the black letter law, but the moral law of regulating human behavior, was ushered in by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's citation of a 1981 gay rights opinion by the European Court of Human Rights in the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.   That decision struck down a Texas law that criminalized sodomy between consenting male adults, and swung wide the barn door to not only legalizing homosexuality in states where sexual practices among them are considered a crime, but also struck a deep blow to those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.
      Vehemently opposed to the use of European precedent as credible foundations for any U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the court of having "taken sides in the culture war".

      Justice Scalia has taken the position of a "rugged individualist," fighting the trend for the U.S. Supreme Court to bend an ear to growing foreign legal developments and thus influence American law from decisions across the sea.   While Justice Kennedy attacked the sodomy laws of Texas and other states where consenting adults risked prosecution as a "meaningless" and "dangerous" and evidence of a Western consensus on sexual privacy, Justice Scalia railed that the court should not impose foreign views on American constitutional law.
      The court's decision may have come about without reference to Europe's trend, but the inclusion of it in the majority opinion sets a precedent that Scalia considers a rub of the green.    It suggests that America's legal and moral isolation from Europe and the world is teetering.
       Many observers feel the use of "world legal opinion" in shaping American law will oil the door for more laws to be smashed such as the current federal ban on gay marriages.   By citing "outside nation's" as "evidence" of America's need to change its legal and moral character, the Supreme Court is virtually changing its title from United States Supreme Court, to United States Influenced by World Court.

      European law was shaped far differently than American law, and for a variety of different reasons.   American law was designed to support and accelerate the "individualism" of the state as opposed to the trend in Europe to encompass all differences between nations.   Essentially, laws that take into consideration all the fringes of a diverse society tend to water down the core of its foundations.  Individuality is lost in appeasement of all aspects.
       Scalia, looking down the road, is fearful the growing pressure on the Supreme Court to deal with critical mass social and moral issues will not reflect the original intent of the constitutional framers--and that was to cleave the influence of Europe and other nations on the destiny of America.
       Perhaps no more startling difference between America's role as an individualist nation was experienced by the lack of support of Europe, excepting Great Britain, in the recent Gulf War.  France, Germany and Russia virtually turned their backs on supporting America's action, illustrating a chasm between the Executive and Congressional Branch of government that differs greatly from the Supreme Court's Legislative limb.

      But the decision of the Supreme Court to virtually "make law" by its decisions is another strain to the American system of "individuality."    Over the years, the Supreme Court has been criticized as extending its power from arbitrator to law maker.   Under the Constitution, only Congress can make law.  But the growing power of the Supreme Court to effect legal changes in the United States has smothered and often strangled the power of Congress.
      Unaware Americans not familiar with the balance of power established between the Executive, Congressional and Legislative branches are often not aware that nine Supreme Court judges, each with his or her own political and moral viewpoints, have amassed the power to strike down or invoke laws that impact over 300 million people.
      Congress was designed to make laws, not the Supreme Court.  The power of a lawmaker, once the cartographers of American laws and morality, is now emasculated by the "whim" of a majority decision by the Supreme Court.    Nine justices rather than 435 congress people, pilot the ship of American law.   
      For the Vigilant in America, the Supreme Court can become the Beast of Terror.   Through Complacency, the average American can look at the Supreme Court as the source of moral and legal footing for our nation, rather than as a mediator, an independent third party.
      The original balance of the Supreme Court was to provide checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative so that the President could not railroad policies over the people's wishes, reflected by Congress and the Senate or violate the Constitution.   However, the Supreme Court was never given explicit power to perform judicial review.  Their power is implied.
      Decisions made today, however, are more explicit than implied.   The world doesn't look at Congress as the source of laws, but at the Supreme Court.  Those who seek to oppose a law try to influence the Supreme Court, not their legislators.
      It's like a child who finds that Daddy doesn't agree so he or she runs to Mommy to get her to overturn Daddy's view.

       Such power vested in nine people is dangerous indeed, especially since the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is politically charged, and each tend to represent factions.    In essence, the laws of America are based not on the representative government of one congressperson per every 626,000 citizens (291 million population divided by 435 congress people), but by one Supreme Court Justice for every 32.3 million people (291 million divided by nine Supreme Court Justices).
      Parents of Vigilance who think about a process where nine people can decide the legal and moral laws of a nation, especially when such laws and morality are being drawn not from the well of American experience, but extracted from the European consciousness, might want to stand up and be counted.
      Complacency, however, will keep them seated.
      Ignorance is bliss.
      But, it is expensive.

      Decisions by the Supreme Court are simply ink on paper.   They can be changed.   But, the problem with change is that it takes so much effort that most people decide to swallow the pill rather than try and change the medicine.
      Citizens, however, need to be alert that legal and moral decisions carved into American law are inherited by their children, and their Children's Children's Children.
      It takes Courage, Conviction and Right Actions for future generations for people to sit down and write their Congressperson a blazing letter simply stating: 

June 30--Be A Caesar Of Vigilance

©2001 - 2004, VigilanceVoice.com, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design

The Pledge Of Vigilance