Taking Back Our Stolen History
Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

(SCOTUS) is the highest court of the judiciary of the United States of America. Alexander Hamilton originally described the federal judiciary as the “least dangerous branch” due to the fact that it does not have the power to enforce its rulings, or control the country’s finances.[2] However, due to liberal tendencies the Supreme Court has grabbed so much power in the last half-century that it currently exceeds the authority of the other branches of government. The Supreme Court hears and decides fewer and fewer cases: 150 per year in the mid-1900s, to only 80-90 cases in 1990s and 2000s, to only 60-70 around 2020, and then only 50-60 cases in 2022.[3]

“If the … president doesn’t place morally sound Christians on the bench of our highest court of this land, we might as well look for a new country to raise our children in. The Reagan and George H. Bush administrations failed us when they nominated “moderates” to the bench and the Clinton administration further disappointed us with the nomination of Judge Ginsburg. The … presidential administration will determine the path the United States will take. Will it be path of light, or further darkness?” — Anthony A. Falzarano

Starting in 1791, the Supreme Court met in the Old City Hall building in Philadelphia. The size of the court was set at nine in the Judiciary Act of 1869. Between 1800 and 1935, it met primarily in the basement of the United States Capitol building, then in the Old Senate Chamber, until it moved into its present location at One First Street NE, Washington, D.C.

The Constitution does not specify the number of Justices on the Court. The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number at the current nine, consisting of eight Associate Justices and one Chief Justice. To assist them there are many clerks, guards, and staff. Historians generally divide Court history into eras named after the Chief Justice then presiding (e.g., the Rehnquist Court and the Warren Court).

Justices are appointed by the U.S. President with the advice and approval of the U.S. Senate, which means that confirmation by a vote of a simple majority of the Senate is required before one can be sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court. There is no requirement that, whenever The Chief Justice’s seat is vacant, that the nominee be a member of the Court, though it is common.

A list of pending cases to be heard on their merits by the Supreme Court, also known as petitions for which certiorari has been granted, is available on its website.

With the exception of a few cases (mainly involving disputes between states) where the Court has original jurisdiction, a party to a case from a lower court (either a Federal appellate court, or a state supreme court if the party is arguing that a United States Constitutional right was violated) must request the court to grant a writ of certiorari to hear the case.

The Court grants the writ in only about one out of every 100 petitions filed with it each year. And when granted, not all cases result in an actual court hearing: the court may grant the writ in a case similar to one where the Court did render an opinion, but then instead of a hearing will remand (return to the lower court) the case to reconsider its decision in light of the Court’s opinion in the similar case (this is common if the opinion was rendered either during a term of the Court or the immediately preceding prior term).

When a case is heard, the Court hears the cases en banc (as opposed to lower level courts where a panel may hear the case). Time limits are very strict, usually only one hour (divided between the parties) is granted (though, in some exceptional cases, extra time may be granted) and the parties are frequently interrupted by a Justice asking a question or making a comment (though notably, Justice Clarence Thomas had a long period where he didn’t ask a question from the bench).

Prior to the Marshall Court, the Court issued opinions in seriatim. This means that each Justice wrote his own opinion and delivered it from the bench. Currently, the Court issues one opinion, said to be “the opinion of the Court”. Opinions tend to have the history of the case, followed by the Court’s reasoning and action. Generally the opinion will be written by a member of the majority, chosen by either the Chief Justice or the most senior Justice in the majority.

When a majority of Justices agrees to the opinion, it is called the majority opinion. Occasionally, a majority of Justices agrees to the remedy, yet a minority of Justices agrees with the main opinion. This is called a plurality opinion.

Justices that disagree with the Court’s action can and frequently do write dissenting opinions, which state their objections to the ruling. When a Justice agrees with an action, but not the reasoning behind it, he may write a concurring opinion, which states the reasoning he would have used. Such opinions have no bearing on the case at bar, but are often used later in time as justification for legal rulings.

Current members

NameDate of AccessionAppointed byTitleGeneral ideology
Clarence ThomasOctober 23, 1991George H. W. BushAssociate Justiceconservative
Stephen BreyerAugust 3, 1994Bill ClintonAssociate Justiceliberal
John RobertsSeptember 29, 2005George W. BushChief Justicemoderate/liberal
Samuel AlitoJanuary 31, 2006George W. BushAssociate Justiceconservative
Sonia SotomayorAugust 6, 2009Barack ObamaAssociate Justiceliberal
Elena KaganAugust 7, 2010Barack ObamaAssociate Justiceliberal
Neil GorsuchApril 10, 2017Donald TrumpAssociate Justiceconservative
Brett KavanaughOctober 6, 2018Donald TrumpAssociate Justiceconservative
Amy Coney BarrettOctober 26, 2020Donald TrumpAssociate Justiceconservative

Source: Conservapedia

Chronological History of Events Related to SCOTUS

Spanish Supreme Court Rules Vax Passports Illegal

Spanish Supreme Court Rules Vax Passports Illegal

Amidst the wall to wall coverage of all things Covid, consumers of mainstream media will have missed one of the most significant recent decisions within the EU countries. That was the ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court on August 18 that the imposition of vaccination passports by the regional government of Andalusia was unconstitutional. The ruling states that insufficient evidence had been presented to justify the ...
Supreme Court Backs Illegal Immigrant Challenging Deportation

Supreme Court Backs Illegal Immigrant Challenging Deportation

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with an illegal immigrant from Guatemala fighting his deportation by immigration authorities in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch that "focused on a single word," ABC News reports. Agusto Niz-Chavez brought the case after the government initiated deportation proceedings against him in 2013, about eight years after he first crossed the border into the U.S. in 2005. The government sent ...
Attorney Lin Wood Releases Video of Whistleblower Testimony on Justice Scalia Murder Plot by FBI / Justice Roberts

Attorney Lin Wood Releases Video of Whistleblower Testimony on Justice Scalia Murder Plot by FBI / Justice Roberts

The whistleblower's identity is not given, but has been brutally tortured and had to live in fear for his own life and that of his family for several years. The guilty parties, according to Wood, thought their threats had silenced him. Court evidence was sealed by a Maryland court for 'National security' purposes. False charges were brought against him, but Wood pled a pardon would be ...
Cybersecurity Document Exposes How Globalists Stole Election — Tells Americans To “Prepare For War”

Cybersecurity Document Exposes How Globalists Stole Election — Tells Americans To “Prepare For War”

A mysterious cybersecurity document promoted by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne extensively outlines how the 2020 election was stolen in the six battleground states and lays out 3 possible paths forward to restore America’s election system. The document, titled “Reclaiming a Superpower: Americans Prepare For War”, was supposedly drafted by an unnamed cyber team who carefully summarized widespread fraud and many crimes and even attacks against America ...
TOTAL BETRAYAL: Supreme Court Strikes Down Kansas Law Requiring Identification to Vote

TOTAL BETRAYAL: Supreme Court Strikes Down Kansas Law Requiring Identification to Vote

(Big League Politics) The Supreme Court has stomped out an attempt by the state of Kansas to revive voter identification laws, in another move that will further disenfranchise Republican efforts to retain senators in Georgia. The law, which had been heavily promoted by former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach, would have required voters to provide a birth certificate, passport, or other proof of citizenship to be able to ...
Ossoff Deputy Political Director Reveals Democrats Are Hiding Plans to Pack Supreme Court with Liberal Justices

Ossoff Deputy Political Director Reveals Democrats Are Hiding Plans to Pack Supreme Court with Liberal Justices

Project Veritas Action Fund released a new video exposing deceitful comments by a senior staffer in Jon Ossoff’s U.S. Senate campaign in Georgia. Ossoff’s deputy political director, Max Harris, admitted to a Veritas journalist that the campaign cannot be upfront with its policies on Supreme Court packing nor policing and public safety. “How many dishonest people has Ossoff hired to work in his staff? This is ...
TX AG Uses “Article III” to Bypass Lower Courts and Go Directly to SCOTUS…Lawsuit Against PA, MI, WI Was Filed at 12am

TX AG Uses “Article III” to Bypass Lower Courts and Go Directly to SCOTUS…Lawsuit Against PA, MI, WI Was Filed at 12am

Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a brilliant new lawsuit right before midnight. He’s taking a different approach than anyone else and his path leads straight to the SCOTUS. Paxton believes that he can use “Article III” to take his lawsuits against PA, WI, and MI straight to the SCOTUS, bypassing the lower courts (too many corrupt judges) totally. The Texas lawsuit is President Trump’s strongest case against ...
Trump Campaign Files Election Lawsuit with Wisconsin Supreme Court Challenging Thousands of Illegal Ballots

Trump Campaign Files Election Lawsuit with Wisconsin Supreme Court Challenging Thousands of Illegal Ballots

The Donald Trump campaign filed an election lawsuit with the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday morning. The lawsuit challenges the 2020 presidential election in the state that was consumed with fraud. The Trump campaign alleges, among other issues, that abuse of absentee voting affected 220,000 ballots in the battleground state….According to the lawsuit, Wisconsin Election Commission officials as well as the city clerks of Milwaukee and Madison ...
Amy Coney Barrett Sworn in as United States Supreme Court Justice at Trump White House Ceremony

Amy Coney Barrett Sworn in as United States Supreme Court Justice at Trump White House Ceremony

The Senate voted to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court on Monday night, making her the third justice to join the nation’s highest court under President Donald Trump. The Senate confirmed Barrett along partisan lines, 52-48. Barrett will become the third justice to join the Supreme Court since Trump took office, after a Senate Republican majority confirmed Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch ...
Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court — Democrats Boycott Committee Vote

Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court — Democrats Boycott Committee Vote

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-0 to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court on Thursday morning. Democrat members on the committee boycotted the vote. Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats boycott committee vote on #ACB pic.twitter.com/tqTI6EMVIP— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) October 22, 2020 The US Senate will vote on Amy Coney Barrett on Monday — eight days before the US election and the birthday of ...