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

Same Sex Marriage Legalized

Same Sex Marriage Legalized

The U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage, forcing all states (unlawfully) to recognize homosexual unions and ruling that state bans are no longer legal in America. On this night, gay President Obama lit up the Whitehouse with the six rainbow colors of gay pride. Below is what the justices said in the majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary ...
Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

Supreme Court Once Again Saves ObamaCare by Rewriting It

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, using the acronym for the court, declared Thursday as a majority of his colleagues once more rewrote the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to save it. In the case of King v. Burwell, the court ruled 6-3 that the plain language of the ACA means something entirely different. Although the law specifically states that refundable tax ...
Supreme Court Rules Generic Drugs Exempt from Liability

Supreme Court Rules Generic Drugs Exempt from Liability

The US Supreme Court made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability. Drug companies failed to warn patients that toxic epidermal necrolysis was a side effect. But the Supreme Court ruled they're still not liable for damages. In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court ...
US Supreme Court Rules 5-4 to Mandate Gay Marriage in All 50 States

US Supreme Court Rules 5-4 to Mandate Gay Marriage in All 50 States

The Supreme Court issued rulings on two highly-anticipated cases on gay marriage on June 26, 2013. By 5-4, it ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. In a separate ruling, it declined to take on the broader issue of gay marriage. The court decided that supporters of Proposition 8, a ...
Obama Signs NDAA 2013 into Law Making Assassinations, Indefinite Detention, Propaganda Manipulation of U.S. Citizens Legal

Obama Signs NDAA 2013 into Law Making Assassinations, Indefinite Detention, Propaganda Manipulation of U.S. Citizens Legal

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 4310) was signed into law by President Obama, which allows for the indefinite detention and the assassination of US citizens, without due process, and makes it officially sanctioned and legal for our government to LIE to us and use propaganda as it pretty much deems it necessary which made it into the final, approved version of the bill, hours before its passage ...
Supreme Court Ruling is Victory for Property Owners vs. Bullyish EPA

Supreme Court Ruling is Victory for Property Owners vs. Bullyish EPA

Victory for Land Owners vs. land grabbing government agencies: Mike and Chantelle Sackett of Idaho ran into the iron fist of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when they began building their home in 2007 on a two-thirds acre parcel in a residential neighborhood of Priest Lake. Like their neighbors who had already built homes next door, the Sacketts got their permits from the county and began ...
Citizens United v. FEC: Big Money Politics Gets Even Bigger Green Light

Citizens United v. FEC: Big Money Politics Gets Even Bigger Green Light

What’s it all about? In a nutshell, the 5-4 Citizens United decision allowed corporations (including certain nonprofit corporations) and labor unions to expand their role in political campaigns. The case did not affect contributions to a candidate’s actual campaign. It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office. What changed: many outside, non-candidate organizations could now raise and spend ...
Court of Appeals Issued Decision 'In re Seagate Technology' making it Virtually Impossible for Inventors to Demonstrate Willful Infringement

Court of Appeals Issued Decision ‘In re Seagate Technology’ making it Virtually Impossible for Inventors to Demonstrate Willful Infringement

In 2005, the multinational corporations asked the Supreme Court to prevent permanent injunctions in patent litigation even after the patent owner had established that there was ongoing infringement and the patent survived every challenge mounted by the infringer. The Supreme Court complied and that significantly tilted the balance away from patent owners and toward infringers. Without a realistic fear of a permanent injunction facing them large ...
The United States Supreme Court ruling in KSR v. Teleflex fundamentally changes Patent Law Making it Harder to Protect Patents

The United States Supreme Court ruling in KSR v. Teleflex fundamentally changes Patent Law Making it Harder to Protect Patents

The United States Supreme Court ruling in KSR v. Teleflex fundamentally changed the law of obviousness, making it harder to obtain patent protection. The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR essentially says that if you set out to accomplish something and you do accomplish what you set out to achieve then the resulting innovation is obvious. Of course, that is ridiculous because under such a standard only accidental innovation would be ...
Corrupt Andrew Weissmann Takes Down Innocent Big 5 Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson and 80,000 Employees in Enron Scandal

Corrupt Andrew Weissmann Takes Down Innocent Big 5 Accounting Firm Arthur Anderson and 80,000 Employees in Enron Scandal

The accounting firm Arthur Anderson was the outside auditor for Enron Corp., a Texas-based oil and natural gas energy conglomerate.  In 2001, news reports started to surface that Enron was in financial trouble.  As Enron’s outside auditor, Arthur Anderson had all Enron’s financial records, and Arthur Anderson has certified Enron’s financial statements and SEC disclosures.  Arthur Anderson set up a “crisis management” team to deal with ...