Supreme Court Justice Reveals One Startling Thing Causing ‘Destruction Of Our Democratic System’

Nine figures far removed from the everyday pulse of American life threaten the very principles America was founded upon, says one of America’s foremost conservative legal minds.

The activist U.S. Supreme Court and its liberal rulings threaten “the destruction of our democratic system,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said last week in California.

“Do you think the American people would ever have ratified” the Constitution if they had been told, “the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is?” Scalia asked in a speech at Santa Clara University.

In high-profile abortion rulings, liberal justices “vote on the basis of what they feel,” Scalia said.

“It’s the destruction of our democratic system,” Scalia said. “I cannot imagine the system can continue with more and more of the basic rules made by the Supreme Court.”

Since the ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in June, Scalia has been an outspoken opponent of the court’s rulings.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” he wrote in his dissent opposing the same sex marriage ruling.

“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia wrote in his dissent.

He continued: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”

“This practice of constitutional revision (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,” he added in his dissenting opinion.

h/t: Business Insider

Abortion, Texas, The Supreme Court, And The New York Times

On Thursday, Linda Greenhouse, who has been writing for the New York Times regarding Supreme Court cases since the 1970’s, delved into the latest drama unfolding at the nation’s highest court: abortion. Texas, as have many other states in the South, enacted a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Even as federal courts have upheld the law, Greenhouse wrote an op-ed highly critical of the law and the pro-life movement. Any American with a sense of morality, even if you consider yourself pro-choice, should immediately cringe at some of the words she wrote. This editorial is a direct response to her op-ed.

Wendy Davis Greenhose writes:

The official reason for the new requirements is to protect women’s health — “to raise standards of care and ensure the health and safety of all abortion patients,” as the state told the Supreme Court in the brief it filed last week urging the Supreme Court not to hear the clinics’ appeal. Is Texas suffering from an abortion-related health problem? Not exactly. There were 360,059 abortions performed in Texas from 2009 through 2013 — that is, before H.B. 2 took effect — resulting in no deaths and a minuscule rate of complications requiring a hospital visit.

Am I the only one who caught that? If from 2009 to 2013 there were 360,059 abortions performed in Texas, how in the world did that result in no deaths? What about the deaths of 360,059 innocent children at the profit of Planned Parenthood? Do they not count?

I’m going to ignore that logic (or lack thereof) and move on to her point – the health of the mother. While most procedures are generally safe, there have been countless reports, investigations, and studies related to severe injury or death, not to mention psychological damage, as a result of legal abortion attempts. Is it that draconian to ask a doctor who performs a potentially life-threatening procedure to have the privilege to admit patients at a nearby hospital? If anything, it should be the “Women’s Health” movement that supports such laws as they only benefit women. After all, at a legitimate medical facility, many of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented.

One Dallas clinic was forced to close in June after 36 years because its medical director, while initially offered admitting privileges, couldn’t meet the requirement to send 48 patients a year to the hospital. Even the more common 10-patient requirement is impossible for abortion providers to meet.

Here is the main problem with her argument. This case is not and should not be about what restrictions the hospitals may or may not have on handing out admitting privileges to doctors from other clinics. Abortion restrictions are legal; the Supreme Court made that clear in Gonzales v Carhart and Planned Parenthood v Casey. The question here is whether asking doctors who perform life-threatening procedures to have hospital admitting privileges is an undue burden. Each hospital sets their own rules on who and when to give them out; and if the pro-choice movement has a problem with their rules, they should take that up in a separate case. It is completely irrelevant to this case. Improving the safety of abortion clinics in no way presents an undue burden. Texas isn’t saying you can only have 10 clinics; you can have 1,000 in the state if you want, and abortion rates can be at their highest in history, as long as the doctors performing them meet the safety guidelines and requirements.

The state claims in its Supreme Court brief that the absence of an abortion clinic in the entire western half of the state is of no concern because women in El Paso, where the two abortion clinics will have to close, can simply travel one mile across the state line to a clinic in nearby Santa Teresa, N. M. New Mexico, however, has not imposed any TRAP laws. It requires neither admitting privileges nor a hospital-like setting. So Texas’ interest in protecting the health of its abortion patients evidently stops at the state line even as it sends women seeking abortions in West Texas across that line.

Once again, Linda, you are swimming in irrelevant waters. If it was up to Texas, they would enact such a law in New Mexico as well, but it is not up to Texas. They can only enact regulations within their own borders. So yes, Texas’ interest in protecting the health of Texan women stops when you leave Texas. Texas has no say or interest in what happens in New Mexico. The brief was a response to a common argument made by Whole Woman’s Health in which they say that women from El Paso, virtually the only major city in Western Texas, don’t have access to abortion providers. Texas responded by saying it was false; they have an abortion provider closer to them than 80% of the state’s population, even in Eastern and Southern Texas. It may happen to be in another state, which means that Texas can’t regulate it; but crossing a state line in no way presents an undue burden on a woman’s access to an abortion.

If a women has to drive 3 hours in Mississippi to get an abortion, as has been the case for years (the only clinic in the state is located in the central, capital city of Jackson, roughly 3 hours from the northern and southern tip of the state), and no court has ruled that an undue burden, how could driving one or two miles be one?

She continues to argue that in fact this law does impose an undue burden on women, but she fails to mention the fact that the state is not the one imposing the hospitals restrictions; therefore, the state is not placing an undue burden on anybody. As I previously mentioned, in the eyes of Texas, there can be a clinic every square mile. As long as they have access to a nearby hospital and follow safety regulations, Texas is OK with it. If banning partial-birth abortions was not seen as an undue burden, how can this be? There is no way having TEN CLINICS (with the possibility for many more) in one state can present a “substantial obstacle” to women who want an abortion.

In the end, Linda Greenwood spends a lot of time discussing Kennedy’s majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey and in Obergefell v Hodges (what same-sex marriage has to do with this topic is beyond me). Yet she virtually ignores Gonzales v Carhart; Kennedy’s opinion allowed for abortion restrictions that undoubtedly reduced the number of overall abortions, and has become a rallying point for pro choice activists all over the country. I trust that Justice Kennedy will continue to balance access to legal abortion services to women’s health, as he did in his Carhart opinion. This law is in no way an attempt to reduce the number of legal abortions, though there is no doubt many of us hope that is a result. At the end of the day, its only purpose, and the only merit the Court should debate, is whether making abortions safer is a legal restriction to abortion. They voted once that it is, and I pray they do it again.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

To Presidential Candidates On Supreme Court Justices: No More Surprises

The next President is likely to appoint as many as three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing a new majority and shaping the judicial branch for a generation. Those justices will serve for many years after the next President leaves office, and their votes will impact every facet of American life.

Will the next President select justices who abide by the text and original meaning of the Constitution, even when doing so is politically unpopular or inconvenient? Or will our system of checks and balances be further damaged by the selection of justices who take for themselves the power to rewrite the Constitution according to their own political preferences? Sadly, despite three Republican presidencies and seven appointments to the Court in the last thirty-five years, we still have a Court that too frequently does the latter.

The undersigned conservative leaders are determined to reverse that trend. To that end, candidates who seek the presidency must, at minimum:

  • Commit to nominating justices with a proven, judicial record of upholding the Constitution. No matter their credentials, avoid nominees with thin paper trails who have failed to publicly demonstrate their unwavering commitment to limited, constitutional government.
  • Commit to spending the energy and political capital necessary to win a confirmation battle. Liberal activists would do anything to block the appointment of justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.The next president must demand an up-or-down vote for such justices, and support efforts to eliminate the judicial filibuster.
  • Commit to ending the liberal American Bar Association’s preferential role in screening judicial nominees.
  • Commit to reminding the justices they appoint that they take an oath to faithfully support and defend the Constitution, and that their oath continues throughout the time they hold office.



Hon. Edwin Meese III

Former Attorney General

President Ronald Reagan


Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell

Policy Board Member

American Civil Rights Union


Hon. Bob McEwen

U.S. House of Representatives

Former Member, Ohio


William L. Walton

Vice President

Council for National Policy


Hon. David McIntosh

Former Member of Congress


Kelly Shackelford, Esq.

President, CEO and Chief Counsel

Liberty Institute


Ellen L. Barrosse

Chairman, Conservative Steering Committee of Republican National Committee


Brian Brown


National Organization for Marriage


Frank Schubert


Mission Public Affairs, LLC


Floyd Brown


Western Center for Journalism


Bob Adams


Revive America PAC


Linwood Bragan

Executive Director

CapStand Council for Policy and Ethics


Rick Scarborough


Vision America Action


Michael Farris, JD, LLM


Ted Baehr

Publisher, MOVIEGUIDE(R)
Member, Broadcast Film Critics Association


Seton Motley 


Less Government


Ali Akbar

Senior Advisor

Black Conservatives Fund


Dan Weber

CEO, Association of Mature

American Citizens (AMAC)


Rod D. Martin

Founder and CEO

The Martin Organization


Sherri R. Martin

The Martin Foundation


Nicholas Stehle

Campaign for the American Future


Hon. Sharron Angle


National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Dr. Shawn A. Mitchell

National Chaplain

National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Hon. Jerry Melvin


Florida Republican Assembly


Jim Backlin

Christian Coalition of America


Ron Robinson


Young America’s Foundation


Kristin Fecteau


Campaign to Free America


Gary L. Bauer


American Values


Carrie Severino

Chief Counsel and Policy Director

Judicial Crisis Network


Gary Marx

Former Executive Director and Board Member

Judicial Crisis Network


Phillip L. Jauregui


Judicial Action Group


Raymond J. LaJeunesse, Jr.

Vice President & Legal Director

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation


Richard A. Viguerie



Ron Pearson

Executive Director

Conservative Victory Fund


Curt Levey


The Committee for Justice

(All organizations listed for IDENTIFICATION purposes only)

Hon. Becky Norton Dunlop

Chairman, Conservative Action Project (CAP)

Former White House Advisor, President Ronald Reagan


L. Brent Bozell, III




Marjorie Dannenfelser


Susan B. Anthony List


Alfred S. Regnery


Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund


The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.

Former Domestic Advisor

President Ronald Reagan


Michael Grebe

President and CEO

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation


Jay Mount


MDS Communications


Lee A. Beaman


Beaman Automotive Group


James C. Miller III

Former OMB Director

President Ronald Reagan


John C. Eastman

Senior Fellow

The Claremont Institute


Col. Clifton P. Schroeder, USMC Retired

Member, Council For National Policy


Ralph Benko


Center for Civic Virtue


Quin Hillyer

Veteran Conservative Columnist


Willes K. Lee

Executive Vice President

National Federation of Republican Assemblies


Christopher N. Malagisi


Young Conservatives Coalition


Richard D. Hayes


Hayes, Berry, White & Vanzant, LLP


Kevin Kookogey

President & Founder

Linchpins of Liberty


Joseph A. Morris

Morris & De La Rosa


Elaine Donnelly


Center for Military Readiness


Judson Phillips


Tea Party Nation


C. Preston Noell III


Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.


Mike Spence


Conservative Republicans of California


Alex St. James

Executive Director

Blacks Economic-Security Trust (BEST) Foundation


Andresen Blom
Executive Director

Grassroot Hawaii Action


Larry Cirignano

DC Representative

Children First Foundation


Matt Schlapp


The American Conservative Union


Dan Schneider

Executive Director

The American Conservative Union


Tom McClusky

Vice President

March for Life Action


Hon. Donald J. Devine

Former Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Senior Scholar, The Fund for American Studies


Mario H. Lopez 


Hispanic Leadership Fund


Herman Cain

President & C.E.O.


Gina Gleason

Executive Director

Faith and Public Policy


George Landrith


Frontiers of Freedom










The Conservative Action Project, founded by former Attorney General Edwin Meese and chaired by The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, is designed to facilitate conservative leaders working together on behalf of common goals. Participants include the CEO’s of over 100 organizations representing all major elements of the conservative movement-economic, social and national security.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Here Are The Top 3 Things You Won’t Hear Donald Trump And Most Of The Other GOP Presidential Candidates Say…

1. “We need to end the Abortion Holocaust; and as president, I will enforce the 5th and 14th amendments if individual states fail to do so. We can’t ‘make America great again’ as long as we allow the most innocent among us to be murdered in cold blood with the full consent and funding of our government. The God-given right to life is the most fundamental right human beings possess; and as president, I will do everything in my power to restore the Rule of Law and the Right to Life for ALL innocent human persons.”

2. “The Supreme Court isn’t the Supreme Being, and court opinions aren’t law. And as president, I will not enforce any immoral, illegal and unconstitutional court opinion such as Roe, Windsor, and Obergefell. Judicial Supremacy, the belief that Rule of Judges=Rule of Law and that the president, Congress, and every individual state must always obey every Supreme Court opinion the very moment one is issued, is a toxic liberal lie that we must expose and extinguish; and as president, I will take the lead in doing so!”

3. “God defined, ordained, and instituted marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman; and the natural human family is the foundation for all healthy, virtuous and prosperous societies. America can’t be great unless she is good. And that begins with the preservation of the family. As president, I will call for Congress to pass a Constitutional marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in accordance with God’s definition–and will call for all state governors to cease from (illegally) authorizing the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples, since Obergefell isn’t law and since any law (or court opinion) contrary to God’s Law is no law at all (legally null and void).”

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

A Solution For The Same-Sex Marriage Problem

Right now, the liberty movement is divided almost in half between those favoring the SCOTUS ruling legalizing same-sex marriage and those opposed (count me in the opposed camp). So, right now, the liberty movement is completely stymied over this issue. The only ones who win in such a case are big-government Orwellians.

To be sure, the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex “marriage” was the result of decades of relentless propaganda from the national news media, liberal politicians, and college professors throughout America.

Think about it: what do Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor know that John Locke, Thomas More, Emer de Vattel, Algernon Sidney, William Rawle, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, William Penn, James Wilson, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Jay, Daniel Webster, Francis Scott Key, Hugo Black, Rutherford B. Hayes, and William O. Douglas didn’t know?

In other words, just as in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion-on-demand, the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex “marriage” was judicial activism pure and simple. There were no precedents for either decision. Think of the brilliant minds in law, philosophy, and religion over two thousand years of Western Civilization that somehow missed the “right” of homosexuals to “marry.”

What I’m saying is, I realize that militant homosexuals, ultra-leftists, and judicial activists have been waging war on America’s historic Christian values for decades–and they won a huge victory with the Obergefell decision. I also understand that these people will never be satisfied until they have totally and thoroughly expunged these values from America’s public life. There is no question they will resort to any tactic–no matter how morally unjust or constitutionally corrupt–to achieve their radical, amoral agenda. Kim Davis will not be the last Christian to be persecuted for her faith in this country.

That said, the Obergefell decision has successfully divided the liberty movement almost in half, between those who agree with the decision (on whatever grounds) and those who disagree. But, instead of arguing over the SCOTUS decision, here is what ALL OF US in the liberty movement should be doing: we should be using whatever influence we have to promote the idea of taking marriage OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STATE ALTOGETHER.

Most of us realize that marriage is sacred, that it’s much more than just a civil contract. (Only the state itself reinvented marriage as being merely a civil contract.) One doesn’t have to be a Christian to acknowledge this distinction. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, the state seldom had authority over marriage. Think of it: for over 1,800 years of Western Civilization, the state had little–if anything–to do with marriage. (In America, only the colony of Massachusetts is recorded as requiring State marriage licenses before the mid-nineteenth century.)

So, why do we even look to the state for a license to marry? The fact is, WE SHOULDN’T. All of the bickering over Obergefell only serves to ensconce the notion that the state has legitimate authority over marriage. IT DOESN’T.

In Pilgrim America and in Colonial America–and until only recently in modern America–Common Law (Natural Law) marriage was universally recognized as being not only lawful, but sacrosanct. The idea of asking the state for permission to marry was as absurd as asking the state for permission to take communion or to be baptized.

For example, the State of Pennsylvania didn’t outlaw Common Law marriage until 2005. And the only reason the vast majority of states do not recognize Common Law marriage today is because the Church has completely surrendered the Scriptural teaching on the subject and has willingly (even happily) turned what is uniquely a divine institution over to the state.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, the only one to blame for the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage is THE CHURCH. The ultra-leftists and militant homosexuals would have had NO CHANCE of achieving victory at the Supreme Court had the churches of America been doing their job over the last half-century or more to educate people on the historic Natural Law principles governing marriage and the state. (Virtually ALL of the major problems we are dealing with today are the result of the absence of sound instruction from the pulpits of America.)

But since the Church’s surrender of the sanctity of marriage, here is the current reality: 40 states do not legally recognize Common Law marriage. That means, those 40 states see only the state as having authority over marriage. But the state has NO AUTHORITY over marriage and cannot legally sanction ANY marriage. I remind you that Jesus said, “What therefore God hath joined together . . . .” Only GOD can join couples in marriage.

The best that I can determine, these are the 10 states that still recognize Common Law marriage: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Oklahoma. And Utah only seems to recognize Common Law marriage after the fact. In addition, Oklahoma is currently in the process of banning all State marriage licenses. This is exactly what all 50 states should do. (New Hampshire recognizes Common Law marriage for inheritance purposes only, so it should not be included as a Common Law State.)

So, including Utah, the people in ten states are free to marry WITHOUT a State license. And that’s exactly what every freedomist in those states should start promoting–and promoting LOUDLY. And freedomists in the other 40 states should start demanding that their State legislatures once again recognize Common Law marriage. Maybe people in those states should even consider civil disobedience and marry outside the licensing authority of the State. After all, if God has joined a man and woman together, what difference does it make if the State–or anyone else–recognizes it or not? If enough pastors and churches would do this, it wouldn’t take long for State legislatures to enact appropriate legislation.

Let the state recognize or not recognize to its heart’s content; let it embrace all of the perversion it wants. You can bet polygamy will be legalized next. And then what? Pedophilia? Bestiality? At some point, the sacred institutions of marriage and the Church will be forced to separate themselves from a suicidal society just as they did when the Roman Empire was collapsing. In Rome–as in oppressed nations today–Christians and churches mostly took their worship and sacred ceremonies underground. And, if history teaches anything, it teaches us that no civilization has long survived after socially embracing aberrant sexual behaviors. And America won’t either.

Let’s face it: the federal government in D.C. is leading America over an economic, political, moral, and cultural cliff. So, why do we keep looking to D.C. to fix the problem? THEY WON’T DO IT. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.”

And the two institutions we should IMMEDIATELY extract from government–the two institutions that should have NEVER been allowed to be placed under the authority of government to begin with–are the institutions of marriage and the Church.

How in the name of common sense can pastors and churches take a Scriptural stand on the sanctity of marriage when they have allowed the Church itself to be bastardized by accepting the 501c3 tax-exempt organization status from Washington, D.C., and incorporation status from the states?

Think of it: our spiritual “leaders” have allowed the two most sacred institutions on earth (marriage and the Church) to be prostituted on the altar of state recognition. Think of it another way: our 501c3 pastors have become little more than pimps for the IRS and, now, a radical, activist Supreme Court. Do pastors really want Caesar’s blessing that badly?

Regarding marriage: we should marry under Natural Law (Common Law) ONLY.

Regarding the Church: it should be removed from 501c3 non-profit organization and State incorporation status–and if the pastor and church refuse to extract themselves, we should extract ourselves from THEM.

We either “come out” from this leviathan, or we will be swallowed by it.

Yes, the radical left and militant homosexuals will continue to press their anti-Christian agenda with every means possible. Yes, those of us who have Christian, traditional and moralist convictions are going to be forced to defend these historic principles tooth and nail. But there can be no victory whatsoever by willfully surrendering the Natural Law principles upon which our convictions are predicated. Neither can there be victory by pretending that Caesar’s law is Supreme Law, because it’s not! There is a Court above the court. There is a King above kings. There is a Law above law.

Our founders gave their lives in order to bequeath to us a country in which we didn’t have to decide between obeying God and obeying government, as this constitutional republic was designed to protect our duty to God. Current national leaders–facilitated by America’s spiritual leaders–are taking that wonderful bequeathment away from us.

Therefore, say it anyway you want, “Don’t tread on me,” or “We must obey God rather than men,” but say it we must. And if Christian men and women cannot say it in defense of the sanctity and autonomy of marriage and the Church, they cannot say it at all.


P.S. I have a four-message DVD that I believe is absolutely essential for Christian people–and others who believe in our founding principles–to help them understand Natural Law. The title of the DVD series is “Liberty And Law.” Here are the message titles:

*Biblical Evidence for Natural Law (I show you the Scriptural evidence for Natural Law in this message.)

*Christ’s Law of The Sword (This message explains what Christ meant when He told Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matt. 26:52, KJV) Believe me, He did NOT mean that Christians are supposed to lay down their means of self-defense and never use the sword. I show from the Scriptures exactly what Jesus was saying to Peter. And, trust me, it will probably surprise you, as I doubt you have been taught this truth in church. And it will also help you to better understand a whole host of other scriptural principles as a result.)

*The Law of Necessity (This is a basic Natural Law principle that was demonstrated repeatedly throughout the Bible, including by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.)

*Liberty in Law (There is true liberty only in Law; but this Law does not ALWAYS mean the laws of men.)

This is one of the most important message-series I have ever delivered. And its truths are needed as much NOW as they were when our pastors thundered them forth in the churches of Colonial America–maybe more so.

To order my DVD, “Liberty And Law,” go here:

Liberty And Law

© Chuck Baldwin

If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by