I was having a nice lunch in the cafeteria of the Supreme Court recently, and I had a lot of books spread out across the table when some of the workers there took an interest in me, as I had been there for a while.  They were cleaning up around my table and were interested in what I was doing.  The U.S. Supreme Court is a brilliant institution, and an isolated one, considering its location in the heart of one of the world’s most important cities.  However, the Supreme Court is designed to give the people within that building a sense of intellectual remoteness intentionally.  And I enjoyed it. However, what I was doing was something that, even then, was unique in the employee’s observation.  I was working on several tables and had multiple books open, reading a wide range of material simultaneously.  So, they struck up a conversation, curious about my work there.  I hesitated, because talking to people usually takes time, and I often don’t have much time for small talk and gossip.  However, I had been wondering about something, so this was a good opportunity to ask about it.  So, I asked them how often the Supreme Court Justices came down to the cafeteria to eat, since their offices were right around the corner and down the hall.  The employees giggled and replied that they hardly ever saw the Supreme Court members, that the most common thing was to send their aides down to get lunch so they could eat it back at their desks.  And I get that if you are very busy, like I was, and didn’t want to get too wrapped up in useless conversation.  However, for the Supreme Court to remain relevant and in touch, it owes it to itself to stay somewhat informed about the rest of the world.  And given some of the obvious strategies of lawfare that we have seen and continue to see regarding these radical left-wing district judges, who make decisions that are often questionable, I couldn’t help but conclude that the Supreme Court Justices should be getting their lunch at the cafeteria.

I get it, but you must understand that the domestic enemies of this nation have been using our system against us, and that Trump is a unique moment in history to correct the situation, which should have never been allowed to get so far out of control.  The checks and balances of the three branches of government are part of the process of putting the brakes on an overactive Executive Branch or a legislature that allows power to go to its head. We count on the courts to put the brakes on such wild temperaments.  We don’t want a king in the Executive Branch, typically.  However, we also don’t like the government to be caught in needless red tape either.  I think enough of the Supreme Court gets the philosophy of the problem, and it was good for me to be at the Supreme Court for such an extended period to think about these problems in the scope for which they are presented. Neil Gorsuch certainly understands the situation, as does Clarence Thomas.  But I think Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts are stuck on the brakes function of the Supreme Court when the real solution is speed and support.  I can see how easy it would be to get lost on that idea once you put on the black robes and isolate yourself from the outside world a bit.  And that’s where I think Roberts and Barrett are on the issue of judicial activism from the District Court system, and they need to give themselves some context to the heart of the problem.

A lot of people didn’t realize that Marxism was so much in their lives, and we have not talked about the role that communism has played in our American politics, really, since the McCarthy hearings.  We wanted to pat ourselves on the back and say that Reagan defeated communism and call it a day.  However, the truth is that the works of Karl Marx have infiltrated nearly all our institutions to undermine and ultimately overthrow them. In this specific situation with the courts, we saw plenty of evidence to determine that the Bar Association itself is a functionary of Marxism in our culture that has been highly corrosive. Now that we acknowledge and accept this, we need to take prompt action to resolve the matter.  District judges do not have the authority to intrude on a President’s Executive Powers under Article II.  We elected Trump to make decisive decisions and to use his Executive authority to save America from the many parasites who have been acting as clear domestic enemies both in law and finance.  And part of their strategy is to run out the clock on temperament by stalling executive authority in the courts, where Justices like John Roberts get bogged down in the procedural aspects of court processing rather than focusing on the necessity for expediency.  And that comes with the place itself, the Supreme Court.  The building makes it a point to say to the world, ‘ Take a pause and consider things deeply. ‘  Which I love.  However, the strategy implemented against us is to conceal malice behind such a lofty concept, employing a Cloward and Piven strategy of overwhelming and collapsing. 

It would be all too easy for a Supreme Court Justice to go from their house to their office to the Supreme Court without talking to too many people.  They have private parking, and underground tunnels so they don’t have to go outside to move around and be molested by a sometimes-angry public, and they don’t even have to leave the building to get food.  They have pretty good food at the Supreme Court cafeteria.  Once they get into their offices, it would be very easy to send their aids down to get them lunch, and never to leave, getting lost in their books and thinking about the foundations of the rule of law and to be more concerned with judicial precedent, rather than the content of the decisions, such as district judge James Boasberg has been doing testing the waters to see if he can put checks on the power of an elected president.  From their perspective, it’s worth a shot, for radical leftists hell bent on Marxist ideology, which that judge is, it’s all they can do, so they are going to try.  Such an idea forces the Justices to remind themselves that the court’s purpose is not to engage in participation and compromise with other members.  It’s to be correct, and to stand by Constitutional law.  And you don’t compromise with the wrong political philosophy just so you don’t hurt the feelings of your friends on the court, who you bond with and want to be empathetic to, like Ketanji Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, or Elena Kagan.  The goal of the court is not to accommodate all viewpoints; it’s to be correct in its judgments, which was my answer to the cafeteria workers when they asked about my books.  You want to know the correct answer and to arrive at it in the arena of debate, for which the consideration exposes itself, which was why I was there.  The correct answer is that Trump has Article II rights, which lower courts do not have the authority to overrule.  Voters are the checks on power.  If people don’t like Executive overreach, they can vote those presidents out of office at the next election.  However, because the Supreme Court did not apply the same standard of judicial restraint to Obama, Clinton, and Biden, we now have a mess that needs to be rectified.  And now is not the time to get philosophical about checks on power. Instead, now would be a good time to visit the cafeteria and let the Justices get their own food for a change, ensuring they don’t lose touch with reality and engage with the people the Constitution protects.  And I think things will become a lot clearer for them.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707