Dear friends:If you have been watching any of the U.S. Senate hearings this week concerning Judge Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, you have heard the term stare decisis used repeatedly. It is Latin expression referring to the legal doctrine of honoring past court decisions as precedent in deciding current or future decisions.
The doctrine of stare decisis is treated as almost sacred. Democrats are almost hysterically invoking it as they are trying to coerce Judge Alito to commit to honor precedent regarding the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision allowing the mass slaughter of babies, which caused the subsequent death of probably 50 million or more human beings in the worst holocaust in history.
It's odd and even morbid that the single overriding issue of the Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee is the killing of babies!
But where were those zealous stare decisis proponents when decisions were made in the past 59 years concerning the Christian faith upon which the nation was based. How about these precedents:
Vidal v. Girards Executors (1844): The Court produced a ruling which said, "Christianity is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public." The Courts decision asked the question, "Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?"
Holy Trinity v. United States (1892): The Supreme Court cited document after document from American history and concluded, "There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation." The ruling states bluntly, "This is a Christian nation."
United States v. Macintosh (1931): The Supreme Court declared, "We are a Christian people...according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with the reverence the duty of obedience to God."
But in early 1947, VIOLATING ALL PRECEDENT, an entirely new agenda gripped the Court. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between church and state which must be kept "high and impregnable." Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, author of the decision, stated, "We could not approve the slightest breach" of that separation. The Court cited no precedent from previous rulings. The case was an official betrayal of Americas Christian heritage and the stare decisis doctrine now used to justify the killing of babies.
From the time of Everson until today, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have helped to bring about the greatest decline in American civilization. It was as if the Supreme Court had declared a bloodless revolution in America -- a revolution more subtle and yet just as destructive as the Russian revolution under Lenin. Over the next several decades, we witnessed a stream of liberal court rulings that gradually reshaped who we are as a nation:
Engel v. Vitale, Murray v. Curlett, and Abington v. Schempp (19621963): Within two years, three separate cases effectively removed prayer, religious instruction, and Bible reading from Americas public schools. At about the same time, students began to be taught that there is no God, no absolute truth, that the universe is a cosmic accident, and that they evolved by the chance collision of sea-slime molecules and are the same status as apes. Since then, God, the Bible and prayer have been replaced in our schools by drugs, handguns and condoms. How can anyone deny the correlation?
Florey v. Sioux Falls School District (1979): The Court ruled it unconstitutional for a student to ask at a school assembly, "Whose birthday is celebrated on Christmas?"
Grove v. Mead School District (1985): The Supreme Court refused to remove from the required curriculum of a class a book that referred to Jesus as "a poor white trash God."
Stare decisis? Yeah, right. Where was it when we needed it? It is only used by the Democrats to justify the killing of babies.
Jim