Is SCOTUS Really Showing Us that We Can Make the Rules?

Could the court, all seeing and hearing, be about to school the Republic in how to get back and secure freedoms?

By Shmuel Tepper



I heard a few months ago that a review of the 2015 gay marriage ruling may occur.

Here is some background in case people are unfamiliar with the past. 

Before the SCOTUS ruling states were passing legislation allowing homosexual marriage or domestic partnerships and state courts were hearing cases. The ruling that allowed for what was called marriage equality was based on section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (an interesting name because the bill had to define marriage).

Section 3 defines it as the union between a man and woman. To my knowledge there was no discussion on banning divorce or enforcing existing  adultery laws or creating them where necessary and which may come with prison time in order to defend the sanctity of marriage when the bill was written. So Congress passed the law and President Clinton signed it.

To be fair to President Clinton, he also instituted Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1994, in essence allowing homosexuals and bi sexuals to serve in the military. Back then I think there were only five sexual orientations: straight, bi, gay, lesbian and A. The only orientation actually around was straight. There was not one openly gay or lesbian student in my 1995 high school class for example. 

DODT was repealed under President Obama but DOMA prevented equal protection under the law for gays and lesbians in the military because the federal government was responsible for marriage benefits. Remember this because what I believe happened with Roe was multi-facited.

I think the Court fired across the bow of Congress and the White House. The Supreme Court may be the most powerful and reserved institution among the three branches of government.

A president may propose legislation or push it. The House may pass a bill. The Senate can approve, etc. But changes occurring due to new laws take time. The more so in the past when communication was pre-telegraph or radio and enforcement of laws that drastically changed the republic required the federal government to use federal law enforcement or military resources as was done in Little Rock in 1960 in order to uphold the 1954 Brown v BOE ruling as well as later federal rulings or create federal law enforcement.

This is key to what I believe is occurring and why marriage may be up for review. In these situations the changes demanded by law occurred only after presidential action was taken, the executive executed the will of the judicial.

Before we had kings we had judges. The prophets. The prophets created the king’s and were a check against abuse of their power. People listened to the prophets and the king’s had them killed at times. Today are also difficult times. But I just realized it isn’t the executive. It’s the judges. It’s always been the judicial. God will destroy an entire civilization if weighted scales are used in the market place. I believe the Talmud teaches that.

The US Supreme Court makes no public or private appeals or demands. It is patient. It understands, as opposed to the last decade or two of growing populist demands by federal legislators for immediate changes in the name of equality while these politicians know full well that the change will take time.

The Congress is often ineffective and at deadlock and this is also a good thing. If it were easy for even a divided Congress to pass laws there would be no end to the regulation of daily life of citizens and institutions. Though I went to high school in MD, where I learned a lot of this, I live in Israel and have over half my life.

Here the Knesset, or Parliament, from which the Prime Minister and ministers are made, mixes two branches. There are crazy periods of passing legislation after legislation or passing it incredibly quickly.

So a healthy Congress may take time to change reality as much as is permitted by restrictions of its reach and power by the Constitution. On the other hand a politicized Congress, especially a House concerned with reelection every two years, may be hesitant, to be kind, to pass legislation to say, desegregate schools.

That two year period is also a card for the electorate. If the electorate demands change and change is not made it may choose a new representative. Conversely if change is not made although it must be made it may be act due to fears of electoral retribution.

There are no term limits for Congress and the Senate nor were there for president until after President Roosevelt’s four terms.

As we said the Court is patient. If we look to the Confederate States’ government we see something interesting. The presidency was limited to one term of six years. Remember that President Davis and many others only became Confederates after their home states decided to secede. There was a time when loyalties were not to party but to the home electorate.

As well in that time states had much more power than today. The state senators, elected locally, in turn elected senators who would represent their states in the federal Congress.

Those who would leave and serve the Confederacy were loyal to their states. They did not believe they were treasonous. They thought that the CSA would be more free in allowing slavery than the Union. But they knew that slavery in it’s agricultural incarnation would not survive.

The industrial revolution was continuing with innovation. An economic engine fueled by manual labor and horse drawn carriages would eventually fail to faster industrial economies using new machines that were more efficient than the cotton gin and transporting goods across dependable railroads with fast steam locomotives to cross seas buyers or customers across west of the Mississippi.

The South knew that the world was moving faster with mechanized production methods. Although it was under British sovereignty and with great profits for the British crown and African, Arab and European slave trade partners that slavery in the colonies was established the American southern states were now feeling the coming isolation of a failed economy. The southern states knew soon after the revolution was over, in 1807 when thr British banned the slave trade, that coming times would change. But the wind was still faster than steam.

Prior to the Civil War as secession propulsion began being felt the South knew that slavery would eventually, in its agricultural, plantation and field hand incarnations, disappear. Slavery was, after all, a means to goods production. Southern owners knew that eventually buyers would buy from cheaper venders. They simply would not be able to compete.

The Southern states faced a choice when the slavery issue was at hand. Do away with the peculiar institution at a time determined by the federal government and starve with no income or economy or secede, fight if necessary and do as it would with the institution at a time of its choosing.

Although horrid treatment of enslaved black Americans with racist overtones in the South was a truth, such treatment of black Americans was norlt exclusive to the south. The North was home to vehement racism against black Americans and a refusal to assist and even return run away slaves southward for financial reward was the norm in northern states.

The South was afraid. Not of reprisal but of economic collapse. Some argue that a President Davis proposal in 1864 to emancipate slaves who would fight for the Confederacy would support this, that the Confederacy knew slavery would have to be abandoned. Facts on the ground sped up the clock.

The Court is always patient. It is perhaps the most powerful and therefore most silent of the three Washington actors.

The court can recognize the need for societal change on order to realize Constitutional promises and with a ruling create that change through action or through inaction wait for conditions to cause changes. The Court has a vision field and sees further into the future than the Congress and executive.

If the court decides to be silent observer change can come with greater earthquakes, societal tears and violence.

Why the history lesson of a nation in turmoil when abortion is being banned? We are getting there. Ecclesiastes. The court knows there is a time to observe and a time to act, even if that action results in hardships such as losing the option to abort in certain parts of the union.

The Court is not concerned with present political considerations. It does not run for office. The court acts with knowledge of the past and consideration for the even distant future so that in the long run the citizens will not lose or abandon their powers or the knowledge of how to effect change and be subject to external forces that act on behalf of tyranny.

The court would rather be hated today so that a freedom in question is permanently protected for the people in a century than be popular and not exist or be able to fulfill it’s guardian role in fifty years.

Remember that there was no president who violated the Constitution more than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all presidents. From occupying Baltimore with the military to suspending habeas corpus Lincoln acted as he believed necessary to preserve the government in time of war.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney engaged President Lincoln, challenging him with the supposition that it was within the authority of the Congress to suspend of writ of habeas corpus, that Lincoln had acted without legal authority granted by the Constitution.

At that point in history Congress was not in session every day as it is now. It was called together, assembled. Lincoln argued that his actions were necessary to preserve the government on time of war and waiting for Congress to be assembled may be time given the enemy to better attack and it was possible the assembly itself could be prevented.

What was the executive to do, Lincoln argued to the head of the top court, if the legislative were not able to convene or unable to do what the constitution granted it power to do and the Republic was facing existential danger?

And now we must remember the controversy surrounding Lincoln’s actions. This was a war of brother against brother. White Northern soldiers were going to die fighting White Southerners. The call to arms was not to liberate the slaves. That call may have caused his military to disintegrate. It was preserving the Union.

The Republic, this last best hope of earth, could not be permitted to collapse. Defeat would not only mean capitulation to the Confederacy, which very nearly won the war, but that the only free place for man I’m the planet would go into the darkness and mankind may not again have such an opportunity.

Modern students must remember that the Republic was created to withstand unwanted realities for some time. The Constitution not only checked branch against branch and recognized freedom as given by God with power of government emanating from the people but allowed for compromises that were in the long term against the favor of unwanted realities like slavery while allowing it to exist in the short run in order to preserve as much as possible of the Republic well knowing that change would come, whether legislated or ordered, and that the ability to improve itself meant periodic periods of common angst could be expected.

All things occur through process, including finding political solutions to great problems whole avoiding destruction. Nothing was ever or could ever be secured through immediate overnight changes that the citizenry did not appreciate in so far as the possibility of these changes being reverted.

It is possible that Chief Justice Taney challenged Lincoln in order to support him. They may have been on better terms than publicly thought and Lincoln may have welcomed a public challenge that would be observed by the people, Congress, courts and military, as well as the Confederacy.

The existence of the Supreme Court allowed the people to trust in the wartime government and military. If actors overstepped the court could reign them in. The court had no political aspiration and with preservation of the Constitution and common good top priorities it could challenge or review without suspicion of motives not permitted within the constitutional framework and without desire or attempt to engage public opinion. The Court has no public ego for fourth estate consumption. It is always there, in session or not, the justices were always aware of what was happening in the Republic.

The Court observes today as well. It is always watching and listening and never finds favor with any political gesture. At the annual State of the Union address that every president provides to a mixed session of Congress the justices sit, wearing their black robes, as the president speaks and supporters stand and cheer. They do not clap. The show nothing in their faces or body language. They are a presence. They are there watching and listening, but it is as if they are not.

Remember that justices are not susceptible to the pressures of the electorate. And the Court may even decide to push either or both of the other branches, flexing so seldomly that it reminds of the story of the ancient Jewish court the Sanhedrin, which was considered cruel if it passed a sentence of execution once in 70 years.

So Lincoln was given room by the other branches but challenged as well. The argument that he violated the Constitution in ordering the military to go to war with the Confederacy does not hold water when we remember that the Confederacy was, in its own eyes, indeed a separate nation with its own currency, it’s own laws, its own military. If a nation then you are at war and reunification will follow defeat.

After the war President Johnson issued pardons and in 1872 the Amnesty Act was passed. Former Confederates took oaths to protect the Constitution.

The south could return without fear of reprisal and reconstruction would ensure a viable economy as soldiers from the north occupied the south and former slaves were integrated into society. But Reconstruction was abandoned in a deal called the Compromise of 1877 that saw the electoral college put Rutherford B. Hayes in office as president in exchange for removing occupying soldiers and ending Reconstruction without the integration of the slaves, allowing the Southern Democrats to claim victory and returning sovereignty to localities. Of course the price to be paid by black freemen would last another century until the civil rights movement of the 1960s forced Congress to ensure freedom and equal protection under the law for black Americans.

The Court was witness and the other two branches, constantly in competition and vying for popular emotion and support, took a century to reconcile and act as was necessary.

The South, knowing slavery would eventually cease to exist, still formed the Confederacy and fought. It felt it had no other option. It was a matter of time and the ability to support itself so that everyone didn’t starve if slavery were abandoned immediately. There would not be assistance from the North. If the federal government were to ban slavery throughout the Republic the South knew there would be no accompanying economic and industrial assistance. It had good reason to be afraid.

So it chose secession and war, perhaps to buy time or use the war to accelerate industrialization or to buy another decade or two as an economic buffer for transition from agricultural to industrial. But this way they would not face famine and lose everything in the name of doing the virtuously demanded thing that would certainly see former slave and master alike die hungry in the cold winter night or hot summer sun.

Now that we see that there is within the system at the federal level fear of other branches in either acting or inaction we can look to abortion and marriage.

If the legislative branch fails to enact change the court may do so judicially and the executive must enforce. If it is lacking the court is patient. In all the years from 1973 to 2022 the United States Congress did not pass legislation or an amendment securing freedom of access to abortion.

In the years since 1973 many states did see legislation pass to ensure the legality of abortion or freedom.

I remember in 1992 Maryland did so and I asked my mother, a news reporter, about it and she said there are fears Roe might be overturned but no one knew when so states were passing laws to protect freedom. Hard legislation is solid freedom.

A court ruling can always eventually be overturned, especially if it was only meant to offer Congress and the president room to successfully maneuver and secure moral and political victories without having had to endanger their positions, apparent status, or futures by being the first to compromise because the first to compromise is also the first to have capitulated come next election.

I was not surprised by Roe. I did wonder why now. That in a moment. I was surprised that there were people who truly thought abortion had been banned throughout the Republic. Education since I was in high school must have changed. Or thank God I was born in our nation’s capital. I have not called it that in some time but I’ve been quite literally fighting the Jewish state to stay alive. That at the end.

So the Court, in 1973, did not legalize abortion through legislation or ruling. It ruled that abortion prevention and bans were illegal.

And then for nearly half a century the Congress did nothing.

If you live in a state where abortion is entirely or partially available you should find out why. Become aware of local politics. This is how freedom is secured, not by a fat pursed Congress that has become so populist and unable to carry out basic functions like asking proper questions. And not by relying on the Supreme Court to not do what is in the nation’s best interests no matter how hard it is to understand what they are doing and why when everything is reduced by the Fourth Estate to demagogery. And the people cannot rely on or expect the Court to legislate. They are not diametrically opposed to the left or right. In fact they sometimes vote in a surprising direction or take on the role of swing vote. They work together.

Imagine hypothetically that these nine jurists had an unwritten rule that in deliberations there was no ego and no leaning, no faith or directional desire, that they were absolutely blind and every decision was in fact unanimous, that they would not stop until a decision had been made with decisions being made for a number of reasons. But because the Republic is one from many they had roles, perhaps based in the first vote, perhaps delegated. And so that no group with a genuine vested interest should ever lose hope in the Republic there would always be a minority opinion. And no citizen would feel that the court was unpenetrable like the Oval Office or Halls of Congress and that any citizen with a good case and having gone through the proper channels would be considered to be heard.

So why now? There are a number of possible reasons, all speculation. But I would take into account the fast pace with which American society is seeing extreme changes, the frustrations being voiced by citizens at city halls, the way elected officials are speaking and the general baseless hatred, the sand type that brought destruction to the Jews at the hands of Rome according to accepted tradition, was becoming the measure for normality.

Yes, there will be mid terms and the president’s capacity to govern is being questioned and the Speaker has to contend with rebellious party younglings who apparently do not understand that authority is earned and finally the constant distractions and failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job as individual citizen journalists with phones are being confronted by police who ask for identification to confirm they are in fact “members” of the media. I worked news many years in Israel. But I was not officially a “journalist.” They receive credentials from the Prime Minister’s Office. Imagine a journalist required to show credentials issued by the White House in order to be permitted to do their job.

I can think of many more possible reasons including the possibility that the original decision was made for peace and to give time to Congress. And perhaps our fair Madam Speaker knows this, perhaps not. Perhaps the court puts it’s own conditions on every decision made that requires them. The court, after all, does not answer to anyone.

SCOTUS, I believe, and separate from any considerations of faith or political leaning, does not want a situation in which abortion is banned.

But it cannot tolerate a situation where education has failed and populism reigns as cities burn and states enact laws permitting theft of property while prohibiting law enforcement from taking action and Congress cannot get past its apparent hatred or fear of President Trump to free up time to attend to matters the court has been waiting a half century to see remedied.

Maybe we will give them a chance and see happens more often than people think. I remember wondering when Chief Justice Roberts became Chief Justice how he would simply slip into his role as the chief. And what did that entail and how would the veterans take to following a new member of the court.

And I realized there is likely no one who knows how this court works. They are confidants and trust one another completely and no wonder they so often stay until they die. But why did Justice Thurgood Marshall leave the bench? I remember what he answered when asked why he was leaving. I’m old. Now why would the first black jurist on the court retire? There are things that must always be sacred. Secrets are sacred. No. We do not have a right to know absolutely everything.

So I think the court was growing tired with the amount of time dedicated to matters regarding the previous president over the last six years that could have been used to write, say, legislation to protect freedoms pertaining to abortion.

I know what argument I would make before the court. A woman forced to endure pregnancy at the will of the state has been acquired by the state for the duration of her pregnancy and must carry to delivery, effectively making her quite literally labor for the state which does not compensate her. She is a reproductive slave, a violation of the 13th Amendment.

A junior legislator could make that argument, even a freshman. It’s not hard to come with arguments that work. Perhaps that’s the big secret. Give us an inch we will rule in your favor. Just show us that the process of governance belongs to you, the people and that they have abdicated their creative minds to attorneys as they watch Netflix and order sushi and upload pics of themselves eating up to Facebook so that they can receive an endorphin rush when the get an alert.

First Amendment? OK. I am a pagan witch and I create art to please Mars and Jupiter and I do so by using the blended remains of my aborted fetus to compliment my oils, thus leaving a part of my soul for humanity to see on canvas. That is why I impregnate myself using a turkey baster after a friend of mine masturbates repeating the mantra e pluribus unum, from many sperm one fetus, to honor our past empire.

The ruling? I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.

Why take issue with the legislative agenda? Because it is not legislating to ensure equal protection and freedom knowing it should. Or, the court might wonder, do they not know what they should be doing with everyone around them screaming Nazi facist transphobe at the person to their left because there was no one to their right.

You can twice impeach knowing the trial will not end with conviction and then continue the legacy of division with unnecessary emphasis on January 6, the court may be saying, but you cannot pass any legislation that will protect freedom regarding abortion while the Senate makes the faith of a potential justice grounds for a no vote because of she is a Catholic and abortion is prohibited by the church.

Or has the speaker been doing all this to provide distractions to incredibly powerful younglings screaming equity so they do not accidentally figure out how to pass a bill rather than uploading videos to Instagram. Oh how our dear Speaker had to hate making videos of her big kitchen and talking about ice cream for everyone.

Do you know what a freezer of ice cream looks like when there are always members of her big Catholic family running around? Not full and unused. When would the honorable speaker and second in line to the presidency have time to entertain family if she’s in a constant struggle to keep the little ones screaming about equity and skin color from poisoning her party line.

I’ve been out if the game a while so I’d have to look up who the party whip is but I think that some representatives who didn’t champion legislation protecting a right that was suddenly possessed by half the population without understanding of the extreme serious nature it has to change the world, each time exercised ending potential human life. Did they think that freedom was given by the court? Rights are inalienable in the Republic. They are given by God and only the government at whatever level it acts, local state or federal, can impinge upon the exercising of agency and take away freedom as it enslaves a citizen to gestate.

Hey fellow citizens – every right you enjoy courtesy of court intervention but not grounded in constitutional legislation that will stand up to judicial review is one that you will eventually lose. Do you understand? You need to be able to explain why abortion is a guaranteed right without claiming that it is because the court let you have it for a while.

Are the Federalist Papers useable in arguments? How about CSA law? As the CSA was never a separate nation was the supremacy of its constitution as it affected local law in the south the actual law fir the duration of its existence? You need to read and study and discuss all of the documents that have anything to do with anything. I may be mistaken but I believe anyone from whom the court wishes to hear may be asked to answer any questions the court may have. I don’t think the court would deny itself sound argument or information because the person who has it didn’t complete law school.

I kind of wish I’d gone to law school. My father forbsde us all from becoming lawyers. I don’t know why I listened. He went to Columbia. But I hear they don’t like Jews there so much. They say all of DC was saying back in time that he would end up either AG or on the court. Horseshoes and hand grenades. I’ve thrown both.

There is noise out there claiming that faith, religion as they call it, factored in the decision to overturn Roe. As the law Moses gave to the Hebrews, that law including not only the Ten Statements, often called the Ten Commandments, that actually contain I believe 14 laws if I remember correctly, but as well the laws of the Torah, 613 I believe, and the oral law passed from generation to generation, now compiled as the Talmud, with the Mishna law debated and argued by sages and rebbies. I am a man of rebbies, not rabbies. I am of faith, not religion. I am of God and country, not hierarchy. You need to know when to listen to God and when to country.

Filling out my selective service card was the proudest I’d ever been up to that point in my life. I told no one. There was no posting. I did it quietly. I felt I’d done something incredibly important.

I am among the most fortunate Jews of in history because as remote a possibility as it was when born at Georgetown Hospital I ended up a combat soldier in the IDF, protecting my people’s historical and indigenous land and all who lived in it. But now I’m just getting by with a little help from my friends, surviving. I’ve been at war with the state for quite some time. I am a man in God’s country now.

Do you see, my fellow citizens the beauty and power of faith. And some may like religion. Creed, Dr. King said as the Court watched him speak and the people showed the government that they would not tolerate the oppression, murder and dehumanization of black Americans, and the people sand We Shall Overcome with an understanding that the change would take time, slow walking, arm in arm, voices praising God. It was the 1960s. Some were in Vietnam. Some doing acid and decrying capitalism and some marching.

God’s promise would not be unfulfilled Dr. King said. Remember that the most boisterous and populist of politicians in Congress when seeing the people in revolt, as they were during civil rights, is terrified. His options don’t look good.

Do what is necessary and lose your job. Don’t and the rebellion grows. The Confederacy knew slavery would have to be abandoned and it began the process of emancipation in a way that was palpable to it’s citizens as a last resort as they knew the North was now a threat to it’s existence. That this is not widely known is a failure of education on all levels. But thank God I had an excellent education.

For those who would dismiss my account of history because I am not explaining every detail of, say, the last statement, one need not do so to prove that the account is accurate or true. And do you not see how long this is? We’re almost done. I know. People don’t read anymore. People like MEMES and emojis. Hey Apple, ancient Egypt wants you to stop using magic glyphs. No I kid. I don’t know propiatary law. Well I know some Talmudic law regarding possession and accountability. That’s close. Did you know the Founders nearly made Hebrew an official language of the Republic?

There is Hebrew on the side of the university library building in Ann Arbor, not far from where President Kennedy announced the peace corps, created as a fun summer camp type thing so the FBI and CIA could keep tabs on communists. Maybe that’s why someone who has served in the Peace Corps cannot serve in the military. I digress. And we are close.

So the court saw the importance of the freedom to abort as a pillar for equal protection under the law for women and ruled it permissible in 1973.

And then for nearly 59l0 years the US Congress did nothing to ensure that an overturn could never change that reality. But I knew in 1992 it could.

And the court, after years of open hatred and accusations of racism, fascism and transphobia if a citizen did not capitulate to demands to accept infinite genders and pronouns and use them, and as citizens were terrorized by “cancel culture” and politicians made statements in 280 characters or less that in turn drove the media agenda and without due process people who had made a mistake yet broken no law saw there lives crumble and careers ruined and offices became terrifying as coworkers were suspect and those who did not join the loud chorus of the minority who ran gesture political campaigns to root out those who would not display a symbol or flag and were then labeled the enemy, created a new reality.

It took one minute to switch tracks from intersectionality to women living in a world of male oppression. And the crowds were a bit confused, I believe. It would appear Yuri Bezmenov was right, Gen Z Millennials and Friends. Have you not heard of the great Soviet agent? Look him up. Every citizen deserves to be educated.

The same people who a day prior to the overturn were saying failure to accept that science had proven that there was no such thing as a man and a woman and that failure to do so was transphobic no less evil than racism and that if one did refuse they, too, were the enemy, were the next day saying that women’s freedoms and rights in the United States were in jeopardy, irresponsibly or due to ignorance, neglecting to explain to those listening that there were laws in 12 states that would prohibit abortion while 38 currently still allowed it, and stating that if men were the ones who carried children to term abortion would be legal.

The armor broke. There were only two genders again. And no one on the side claiming that all must abide by the theology of intersectionalism, citizens and government alike, the terror of the minority, as members of Congress called for equity, an economic concept in direct conflict with the pursuit of happiness called for a moment of explanation.

How is this a woman’s issue? I thought men could have children now.  No. Was the civil rights movement called the movement fir colored rights? No. Civil rights for Americans of all colors. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently chastised the west, saying that a man cannot be a woman nor a woman a man. “There must be common sense,” he said.

That remark would be described in today’s climate as bigoted, to be kind. But there are legitimate voices who say no, they cannot. And yes, there are those who have transitioned. And they deserve every protection under the law. But you cannot be teaching kindergarten children that they may or may not be a boy or a girl, straight or gay. You will cause such confusion and damage and if you allow developing minors to transition chemically or surgically you are not acting in their best interests. Children and teenagers no nothing of the harsh realities awaiting them or who they will become.

“With this faith we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last.” Dr. King would have been suspect and cancelled in today’s climate.

The Court is silent. It observes. It gives rope. It is steps in. Since the end of the civil war the federal government has amassed power. The states accepted their reduced role. Now, to remain relevant, some states are seeing elected officials using intersectionalism to gain power.

Every citizen deserves equal protection under the law. No one should live in terror. There must be due process. And the court acted.

You have all had since 1973. Were the court to inform you of its intent and by what criteria it would decide to take action that so radically forces sudden opportunity and demands action while showing the citizenry that there are ways for it to change the law, like ballot referendums, and not depend on government or politicians, and to force the gender issue off the table in order to secure the issue of freedom, and how the court would act such that it would show the people of the Republic that the federal government may not be as effective as the states in securing freedoms and were the court to inform of which cases would be reviewed and what safeguards are in place, what the court is willing to allow and at what point it will step in, the effort would be sabotaged.

Is it majority rules or Constitution rules? Majorities win house votes. They do not determine law when inalienable rights are involved. So if we have laws prohibiting murder would the Constitution view a fetus as being murdered? Yes we can scream over and over again that it’s not a person but that argument without merit will not pass muster in court. So the baby is a being with rights upon birth. Well what about viability? When does it become human? Who decides and based on what criteria? I’d suggest we look to the ancients to see what they said. Why?

The ancients built civilization and conquered the world without combustion.

Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. And then he attacked Rome while with war elephants from the north, I believe. Imagine you’re a centurion just doing your 25 year service to secure citizenship and become a true Roman and receive property and every day you just look north because that’s what they told you to do. Look north. If you see something light the fire. Blow the horn. Then what? Don’t get killed.

And it’s been like ten years of this. And then you see this weird big shape. And another. Like 100 elephants with spears coming out of their heads and curbed swords coming out of their mouths are running. They are far but the ground is shaking for you. Nowhere to run. And you watch and they come into view. You’ve never seen an elephant. There’s no National Zoo or Smithsonian.

And then the elephants start making those noises abs flailing their trunks and men scream running to their sides. And you scream. Monsters! Monster’s! Monster’s! And that is that. Carthidge had arrived. You die honorably, charging monsters with your sword. For the Republic.

There is a reason the three government branches are separate and the court serves for life quietly and rarely exercises its power to redefine conditions in such a way that its incredible power is understood.

Now the court has said look at Congress. Nearly 50 years have passed. Where is the legislation securing freedoms? Look at what has been done in 38 states. Is the Congress able to do it’s job? Would you like the Court to remove power it has allowed you to have since the end of the civil war? Do you hear the Russian KGB president telling you that your society will not survive this?

The president suggests weapons bans in a way that is actually within the court’s powers. Perhaps. I’m not a jurist. Well Mr. President let’s show the people how truly limited your power actually is.

Of all executives around the world the American president is one of the most limited in power. But he commands the military. So he is perceived as far more powerful than he is in reality.

Is the court being heard? Are people seeing the sudden changes and learning that states differ and that all powers not explicitly given to Congress and the federal government by the Constitution are powers reserved to the states? No?

Shall we go for round two. Yes, months ago I heard the universal marriage ruling may be reviewed. Of course. DOMA. Repeal it. The Congress will not? Then authority is returned to the states.

What else might we show the people? Learning is fun, isn’t it? Congress believes it’s purse is infinite and currency that isn’t backed in gold can be printed as more is owed to China and talk of limiting freedoms by replacing cash with electronic currencies gathers steam.

Let’s simply mention the 16th amendment then and see the Congress sweat. What else?

I believe this is what the Court is doing. My God. They are telling us we have permission to have a peaceful revolution.

And perhaps they leave letters to future courts explaining what they saw as the end of the rope. The Republic will not fall. Not to monsters. Hannibak was defeated. He overstretched deep into Rome.

The Court may set the stage to challenge other actors. The landscape already feels different. But a generation may endure hardship in order for the people to learn that they are the source of all power, even ours, and that every day is an opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves.

Rebbie Akivah was 40 when he began his studies. He laughed as the Temple Burned. He saw a fox running out of it as Rome conquered the Jews during Pax Roma. If I’m not mistaken. Why did he laugh? I love questions. Because it had been prophesized. He saw the truth. He died laughing as the Romans skinned him alive. Why was he laughing? Because he was sanctifying God’s name.

My people are God’s messengers. Chosen? Forget that word. We brought the laws that started everything. Do you know how to argue? Why argue? Well then what are we doing? Figuring it out? What does the Constitution say? About what? Abortion. Well. Nothing. So how is it a right? An inalienable right. God gave you the right to murder by giving you choice so that you would not. But abortion isn’t murder. I don’t know I’m not a doctor. Who wants to be a doctor? They all go to hell anyway. What? Who says that? The Talmud. Talmud? But what does the Constitution say? About what? Murder. Oh. I don’t think it does. So people can just murder? Yes. That’s insane! You can’t just go around murdering people! I know. I don’t. But you just said people can murder. They can. But that’s illegal! Doesn’t mean that it’s true. What? People can’t murder people! But they do. The police stop them. Not usually. Sometimes they catch them though. But wait you said the Constitution doesn’t say anything about murder. I don’t think it does, Bubby. But the Declaration promises life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Let’s look at the constitution.

Your freedom has just been compromised. Or other people’s freedom. You are screaming in pain. You do not understand the motives of the court. The system has failed you as has the fourth estate. But we see and hear you all. Do you see the all seeing eye on the dollar? Does anybody know it’s true meaning? Why is there an ancient Egyptian monolith and Roman style buildings throughout Washington? Will anyone understand us? Yes.

The court is patient. We see and hear everything. We are the most powerful institution in the Republic. Who will be the first to take action and show the people that there are ways to secure freedom without and from government.

Our veterans who fought valiant wars for 20 years are arming up and preparing for danger as truckers talk? There will not be a Second Civil War.

You have the right to arms so that you will not have to use them. We are not abandoning you to an eternity without freedom regarding abortion. But we waited nearly 50 years for them to act. We will wait. Who will tell the people the truth? Who will understand us?

I think I do. And you are Julian Tepper and Myrna Statland’s son? A second generation native to and born in Washington, DC? And you nearly joined the US military three times and gave up internships in Congress and the White House so that you could defend your historical people in Israel? Yes. I said America raised me. God wanted me there. And Israel was my future. What has been is what will be.

And you were injured in bombings with PTSD and following flashbacks you began hearing God and seeing and speaking with angels and demons and somehow you knew things that were from ancient books and you’ve been hospitalized multiple times and as you were tortured and abused after hearing God? Yes.

And you remembered our dear Israel’s Proclamation of Independence and found written, “Israel will be a state of freedom, equality and justice, as espoused by the words of the prophets?” Yes.

And you say that this part of our dear declaration, inspired by ours and the Constitution, can be used with the way those in Israel who hear God are treated, to show that the state has lost legitimacy? Yes.

And you realized that there was a way the electorate could essentially fire members of Knesset if even a fraction of those who do not vote in the 5th election in just over two years were to use a secret weapon left by the founding mothers and fathers called the white ballot, and that finally those who rule might fear the people? Yes, though I estimated without running the numbers.

And you spent the two years of COVID lockdowns reading some 70 books including what you call “sod” or secret, law and morality and so on and taught yourself graphic design in four months? Yes.

And it feels as if no one is hearing you as you just experienced de ja vurle and are now trying to figure out what cases might be reviewed but you are thinking militarily, and you served twelve years reserves? Yes.

OK. Yes. We know who you are. What was that you just thought of? What was it you remembered from the last time you were as you say, in the way that you become, seeing and hearing what others do not, cannot? I remembered figuring out that whenever a young American moves to Israel the court is given a file. I believe because the court is for life. And the court follows us. Because it is impossible to miss the symbolism all over DC. And I think that the court has great concerns for Israel and keeps an eye. At least that is what I figured out. That would be something wouldn’t it? Yes.

And finally you stopped voting in American elections and may never vote again and say that democracy is failing everywhere? Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Tepper. We know who you are. What is the Talmud you quote to defend yourself and those like you? Prophecy is given to children and Shotim, the crazies. And we are the Shotim. You cannot say you are a prophet in Israel. You will be taken away. And I know I’m not a prophet. God told me so.

Please carry on Mr. Tepper. The court is pleased. Might you have words of advice? Yes. The internet is the weak spot. Bread and circus last only so long. And I do not know how to fight this system here. It is a tight democracy. Not a republic. There are no people like Israelis. But everyone is too busy or distracted or trying to survive to heat me.

Mr. Tepper, what is your most present danger? Medication called antipsychotics, dopamine blockers, have ravaged my mind and body. I recently informed my state provided attorney at the time that after two years of patiently requesting that my ADHD medication prescription be returned, in a deliberate and calculated manner, that I would begin a hunger strike if the prescription was not returned. The prescription, not pills tomorrow.

And the end result? I was released a year early from a court order mandating psychiatric supervision and mandatory or forced medication through the oversight of a committee. I now have the freedom to choose my own psychiatrist to an extent and to take or not take the pills.

That was quite a victory . Congratulations. Thank you. The hunger strike, if used correctly, does not have to be used.

Yes. That is correct. And Mr Tepper, who is it, pertinent to all of this, that you used to have conversations with in the way that you do during your last period if being awake, let’s call it? Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg.

Have you always known the names of all the justices? I believe since around nine years old yes, up until the recent past. I need to refresh.

That is excused as you are at war. Mr. Tepper please continue as you always do.

The court is observing.

Dedicated to my friends who see me fighting and are also trying to figure it out


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s