Skip to main content
Updated date:

The Progressives Who Changed the Supreme Court

James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

BLIND LADY JUSTICE IS ACTUALLY BLINDFOLDED NOT BLIND

BLIND LADY JUSTICE IS ACTUALLY BLINDFOLDED NOT BLIND

The Constitution

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States of America. The American government is divided into three branches, each with distinct authorities.

The elected representatives of the People have the sole authority to make laws.

The President, with help from his Cabinet, have the authority to execute the laws that the representatives of the people have made.

The Supreme Court has the job of ensuring that the President does not use his authority beyond the laws that have been made by the elected representatives; and ensuring laws are not made by elected representatives that directly violate a provision of the Constitution.

LADY JUSTICE

LADY JUSTICE

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841-1935) and Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) served on the United States Supreme Court together and today are progressive icons. They changed the role of the Court.

Holmes taught future judges to reject the Constitution and precedent; Brandeis taught future judges how to legislate social programs from the bench while clothing it in judicial form. Both Supreme Court Justices were privately Atheists.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was on a mission to dismantle the structures and traditions of American Law. He had an intellectual disdain for religion, which he viewed as nothing more than superstition.

Holmes believed in Social Darwinism—that the elite had an obligation to cleanse the human race of inferior genes through eugenics, views shared by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and Adolf Hitler.

He did not believe anything existed such as morality—and certainly not Providence or Natural Law. Holmes set out to divorce criminal law from any notion of morality. In his view, it was up to judges to mold the law—to make law mean what they wished it to mean.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. believed that all political power should reside with judges. The only way to 'progress' was to circumvent Congress and the Constitution by giving the courts the right to rule over society. Society's values were worthless, merely the opinions of the ignorant. He did not believe the ideas of the Founding Fathers to even be legitimate.

In 1927, Holmes ruled in favor of forced sterilization of "mental defectives." His Supreme Court majority opinion reads: "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

It is incredible to me that American blacks today support Progressivism when its original aims, through Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood among many others, included eliminating the black race through sterilization and abortion.

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR.

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR.

Louis Brandeis

Louis Brandeis was named to the Supreme Court by Woodrow Wilson and immediately backed Wilson's founding of the Federal Reserve System to give the government control of the nation's economy; a constitutional amendment to allow a Federal Income Tax to redistribute wealth; and generous new laws to promote Unionism.

Brandeis thought judges should use their power to change society through their own decisions—to achieve Social Justice. He was an advocate of extremely progressive income tax rates to level society, and to create an army of bureaucrats employed by the government.

Both Holmes and Brandeis believed in imposing unpopular social values directly on the public through the power of the courts—regardless of the will of the People or Congress.

Both sought to greatly diminish the rights of states and increase the power of the central government.

To them, the law was merely an instrument to further political goals. Their influence has been enormous, and the source of extraordinary social changes, by overriding legislation enacted both by Congress and by state legislatures.

LOUIS BRANDEIS

LOUIS BRANDEIS

BLIND JUSTICE

BLIND JUSTICE

William Brennan

William Brennan (1906-1993) and Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) served together on the United States Supreme Court.

These two Justices may be the most progressive ever to sit on the Supreme Court. Both were Darwinists; both denied any fixed principles. To them, the United States Constitution only represented the time-bound preferences of men who could not possibly have anticipated the demands of the future.

It was up to progressive judges to solve social problems with judicial decisions, rather than apply legal principles. Judges made law rather than applied it. The views of the Founding Fathers were anachronistic.

William Brennan thought the federal court system should take on the role as schoolmaster to the nation. He believed the federal judiciary had supremacy over the other branches of government and trumped the Will of the People.

Brennan emphasized that individuals should be liberated from traditional standards. He did favor groups of people but never the organic or spontaneous associations generated by a civil, commercial society. No, what he favored was legally constructed groups of people—identity politics, groups of "societal victims."

It was Brennan who somehow "found" a "Right to Privacy" in the United States Constitution that had never been seen before. Perhaps the justices before him had weak eyes.

Justice Brennan did not believe marriage was deserving of any special legal protections. He created a federal entitlement to welfare, ruling that individuals had an unrestricted right to live off of taxpayers. His decisions in general created an ever-expanding catalog of individual rights and expanded federal powers.

WILLIAM BRENNAN

WILLIAM BRENNAN

BLIND JUSTICE

BLIND JUSTICE

Thurgood Marshall

Thurgood Marshall denied that the Founding Fathers of America were politically or morally wise men. He believed the original meaning of the Constitution had died.

Justice Marshall was a judicial activist to the core. He believed the Court must step outside the boundaries of the Constitution the secure the triumph of the administrative state dedicated to leveling American society, and that individual passions deserved unfettered expression. A powerful centralized administration was necessary, in his view, in the name of equality and radical individuality.

THURGOOD MARSHALL

THURGOOD MARSHALL

Source

My source for this article is History of American Political Thought by Bryan-Paul Frost and Jeffrey Sikkenga.

Comments

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 07, 2012:

Josak— Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your excellent remarks and your insightful questions.

You ask: "Does it not seem likely that an old text would lose relevance over time as new circumstances arose?"

I do not think so. I mean, I do not think that the writers of our Founding Documents viewed them as a temporary guidance. I believe that these very special men looked carefully at the whole of human history, human life, human culture, and human societies, and did their best to grant us a PERMANENT guide to the political life of a great nation, founded on the twin principles of Faith and Freedom, which were based not on temporal ideas but on eternal concepts.

They did provide a mechanism to AMEND this Constitution but not to CIRCUMVENT it.

If the Founding Fathers were right or wrong in their suppositions only history will judge.

I do not think Supreme Court should be subject to popular election, but I also do not believe that it should have the right to subvert our government, meaning Representative Democracy. In other words, I am steadfastly opposed to a Tyranny of the Minority (such as nine men).

Josak from variable on January 05, 2012:

Does it not seem likely that an old text would lose relevance over time as new circumstances arose? Did not several of the founding fathers state that they thought it should be revised in future (including Thomas Jefferson)? The fact of the matter is that supreme court judges are chosen as the most insightfull and moral minds in our judgement system in this time why shouldnt they have power to influence the constitution and wield it as they will? Surely they are better adapted to making decisions for the wellbeing of the US than our long dead founding fathers. Also as a point of interest would you support supreme court justices being elected instead of chosen?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 27, 2011:

I appreciate what you are saying. But eugenics is not the core message of this Hub. I only mentioned that Holmes was on board. I didn't say he invented the idea.

The core message of this Hub is, to quote from my own article, that "Holmes set out to divorce criminal law from any notion of morality. In his view, it was up to judges to mold the law—to make law mean what they wished it to mean.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. believed that all political power should reside with judges. The only way to progress was to circumvent Congress and the Constitution by giving the courts the right to rule over society."

And that "Brandeis thought judges should use their power to change society through their own decisions. . . . Both sought to greatly diminish the rights of states and increase the power of the central government. To them, the law was merely an instrument to further political goals. Their influence has been enormous, and the source of extraordinary social changes, by overriding legislation enacted both by Congress and by state legislatures."

Furthermore that Brennan and Marshall believed that "the United States Constitution only represented the time-bound preferences of men who could not possibly have anticipated the demands of the future. It was up to progressive judges to solve social problems with judicial decisions, rather than apply legal principles. Judges made law rather than applied it. The views of the Founding Fathers were anachronistic."

Brennan "believed the federal judiciary had supremacy over the other branches of government and the will of the People. Brennan emphasized that individuals should be liberated from traditional standards. . . . His decisions in general created an ever-expanding catalog of individual rights and expanded federal powers."

And as I said "Thurgood Marshall denied that the Founding Fathers of America were politically or morally wise men. He believed the original meaning of the Constitution had died. . . . He believed the Court must step outside the boundaries of the Constitution the secure the triumph of the administrative state dedicated to leveling American society, and that individual passions deserved unfettered expression. A powerful centralized administration was necessary, in his view, in the name of equality and radical individuality."

That is the core message of this article, not Eugenics.

Scott Vehstedt from Washington, D.C. on September 26, 2011:

I didn't say you were crazy, I don't think you're crazy. I'm not interested in that. I said the theory was crazy. I would suggest you use better research tools than Wikipedia.

As I've attempted to articulate, I dispute you thesis that progressive judges were responsible for eugenics in the U.S. Again, I have stated, and you have not disputed, that most (about 16 out 33, depending on the year) state eugenics laws were written by god fearing republicans, not atheist liberals.

I simply think its pretty sinister to not mention that, especially given the core message of your hub.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 26, 2011:

Scottmonster—I can assure you that I am not crazy. Even Wikipedia notes:

"the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election. . . . This unofficial system of political colors used in the United States is the reverse of that in most other long-established democracies, where blue represents right-wing and conservative parties, and red represents left-wing and social democratic parties. . . . Some conservatives have also been wary of using the red state term to describe conservative or Republican-voting electorates, as the term had previously most often been associated with communist states, such as the Soviet Union, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and East Germany."

The current Red and Blue came from the far Left-Wing Progressive organization known as AlterNet. I will tell you what is crazy: to deny that these Lefties knew full well that the color Red always stood for the Left, as in Communism and Socialism. And it crazy to deny that these Lefties might want to stick the colors of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin on their opponents. These people are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing.

I never said that bad court decisions have not ever been made that may have favored conservatives (Dred Scott).

Do you dispute anything that I wrote about the views of Holmes, Brandeis, Brennan, or Marshall? Are you trying to obfuscate what this Hub is about? It is about the views of these four men. Have I not expressed the views of these four men correctly?

Scott Vehstedt from Washington, D.C. on September 23, 2011:

That's one of the craziest theories I've ever heard. Red/blue came into play only after the 2000 election and has nothing to do with stalin or the like. Do you really believe that people are being tricked? That if the political colors swapped between parties, that anything would be different at all? I'd ask you to support your claim, but how can you?

No one is taught that the court is "above" politics, certainly Bush V Gore or the Citizens United case, have crystallized that. The idea of having, non-electoral, life terms, was meant to insulate judges from politics, not put them above. And the same rules apply to all judges, conservative or liberal.

Plenty of conservative court decisions have gone down as terrible decisions, not meant to ever be followed again. I.e. Separate but equal, internment of american citizens based on race, taking private property and giving it to other private entities through eminent domain, making corporations people with all the benefits of people and none of the drawbacks, etc. Self promotion, to other similar hubs doesn't help this one out! One simple question posed, still no answer.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 23, 2011:

Scottmonster— The red blue swap was surely made because the Left wants to disassociate itself from Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other murderous Leftists in history—all of whom chose Red as their color. I hope you are not suggesting this decision was accidental or made without aforethought. These people are pretty sharp and they absolutely understand symbols and their meanings.

What this is about is Progressive Justices usurping the authority properly held under our Constitution by the other branches of our government. And as you can see by the quotes I provided, these men made no bones about it either. This was their intent. But few Americans are aware of this and have been taught that the Supreme Court is "above" politics. LOL!

As far as the Progressive political movement goes—outside of judges—I have written two splendid little articles explaining it. Here are the links to those:

https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/Progressive...

AND

https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/The-Progres...

Thank you very much for reading my work. I do appreciate your comments. I apologize for any perceived sarcasm.

Scott Vehstedt from Washington, D.C. on September 21, 2011:

It is interesting (red, blue swap), not because of any sort of sinister attempt by Americans or the media to be different, but simply because, hey, we are different.

I noticed your sarcasm, and I'm sorry, for for any perceived edge to the comment. I dont think you have missed the mark on criticizing the court, but I think you have been quit sneaky about your allocation of blame. All I'm asking is who wrote the laws you complain of? Basic google search will do, if theres no time for real research.

I too strongly disagree with their decisions. I was simply trying to make the point that you seemed to blame, not a few judges, but progressives as a whole for decisions made decades ago. This would be like me saying conservatives are destroying America because of Korematsu V. U.S. or Bush V. Gore. In other words it would be wrong.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 21, 2011:

Scottmonster— Welcome to the HubPages Community. I am impressed to read on your profile page that you have a Masters Degree in American History—perhaps my favorite subject.

I also sadly saw that after three months you have exactly zero "followers." But no more! You now have one: me.

I was not aware that Conservative lawmakers enacted the laws to which you refer. For this, I appreciate you educating me. You see, I am not even a high school graduate.

In a side note, isn't it interested to you, a holder of a degree in Political Science, that conservative states were labeled "Red" by the Main Stream Media? I am sure that you know that "Red" is the color of communist revolutionaries throughout political history—the color of blood. Blue was always the color stamped on conservatives before this rearrangement.

I do not think I have misunderstood the intent behind the actions of the four Justices I highlighted here. Do you not think these four men were Progressives? Were they Conservatives? I think not.

Thank you for your erudite, urbane comments.

Scott Vehstedt from Washington, D.C. on September 19, 2011:

Whats really sad about this is that you have completely misunderstood how these cases got to the Supreme Court. Eugenics cases made it to the Supreme Court because at one point 33 states (mostly in the RED states) had passed laws enforcing sterilization of the unwanted. Poor decisions by the Court no doubt, but is this an example of progressives destroying freedom, when conservatives were mostly the ones writing the laws being questioned in the first place?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 05, 2011:

Ringo— Thank you very much! I appreciate the visit. And you are welcome.

Ringo on February 04, 2011:

Thanks James, Great article!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 04, 2011:

bruce— Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your excellent comments, and I'm glad you liked and agreed with my piece. I, in turn, agree with your words.

bruce on January 04, 2011:

i always knew that these four were traitors to the constitution and you have summed them up nicely.now we need to elect people who will impeach progressive judges and over turn all of their rulings, starting with anchor babies which is another gift from that traitor brennan.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 15, 2010:

Bibowen— It is good to hear from you again. I'm going to come over and check out the Hub you mentioned. Thanks for telling me about it. And I appreciate the visit and comments.

William R Bowen Jr from New Bern, NC on November 14, 2010:

Another great article, James. In fact, I have referenced it on my hub on a similar topic (Hughes' Hubris: Is the Constitution "What the Judges Say it is"?).

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2010:

MMMoney— Thank you! Thank you very much.

MMMoney from Where U Can Make More Money on June 29, 2010:

very nice summary

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 28, 2010:

electricsky— You are quite welcome. I agree with your assessment. Especially that every decision has consequences. True. True. Thank you for coming and welcome to the Hub Pages Community.

electricsky from North Georgia on June 27, 2010:

Thank you for sharing with us how dangerous progressive thinking judges are. This way of thinking taken to the great extreme over time will cause America and the world in general to regress to two classes of people - the ultra rich Aristocracy and the poor peasant class to serve the rich. The great upwardly mobile middle class will be gone. Every decision has consequences.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 24, 2010:

rosycreations— You are truly welcome. Thank you for coming and leaving such a nice comment. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!

rosycreations from Virginia on June 23, 2010:

Thanks for sharing, what others are afraid to speak.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 22, 2010:

DeBorrah K. Ogans— I think we all have quite finite minds, my dear. :-)

Listening more and expounding little is great advice for everybody, including me! :)

Thank you for your thoughtful insights and lovely compliments. I so look forward to hearing from you and I am never disappointed by your gracious words.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 22, 2010:

vogue4us— You are welcome. Thanks for reading. And welcome to HubPages!

Elder DeBorrah K Ogans on June 21, 2010:

James A Watkins, Very informative hub! You have well presented some very controversial opinions… I must admit that I am limited in my finite mind when it comes to pointedly discussing politics; therefore I listen more and expound little…

Can Justice really be served when the barometer from which it is measured and determined is constantly changed? There would be no America without the principles and morals of the founding fathers…

It boggles my restricted mind how so many seek to find so many loopholes under the law to oppress, manipulate, dominate and control the rights of others… Then wrest the law to justify whatever they want to do? I must say that I am so thankful that my son who wanted to at one time be an attorney opted to instead major in accounting and go work for a university!

As always thank you Professor, I always learn something from your wonderful articles! In His Love, Peace & Blessings!

vogue4us from USA on June 21, 2010:

James, thank you for this piece.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 15, 2010:

drpastorcarlotta— Thank you my dear for the lavish laudations!!! You have made my day, Sister. I sure appreciate it.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 15, 2010:

Allan McGregor— Yes, you are so right, my friend. The Supreme Court is supposed to be weak and never should override the will of the people or their representatives. And I like your use of the word "insidious." Indeed. Thank you for your outstanding comments. I appreciate the visit, too.

Pastor Dr Carlotta Boles from BREAKOUT MINISTRIES, INC. KC on June 13, 2010:

This is a excellent History lesson!!! WOW, your so GREAT! Keep up the excellent Hub wrtings!! Be Blessed in the Lord!!!

Allan McGregor from South Lanarkshire on June 11, 2010:

First class. Just one point you might have emphasised was how much Brennan and others changed the Constitutional relationship of the checks and balances.

The President of the United States is elected by the people. Congress is elected by the people. The Supreme Court is not elected by the people.

Originally, this was reflected in the recognition of the judiciary's constitutional inferiority, in other words, the unelected Supreme Court did not have the power to override the will of the elected President and Congress.

Several presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, ignored various rulings of the Supreme Court when they considered them impertinent.

That this is no longer the case today, shows how insidiously over many decades the United States' Judiciary has taken the nation on a journey of departure from the vision of its Founding Fathers.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 04, 2010:

Tuckerp— Yes, they do, though they were not as brazen about it back then, of course.

Thank you very much for paying attention to my article and leaving your insights.

Tuckerp from Clifton Tx on June 04, 2010:

Interesting . I didn't realize atheists went back so far on the Supreme Court .

Although I don't find it a surprise .

Atheists are usually very smart , if not genius. But I have concluded they are insane . Because sane people refuse to be hindered by logic .

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

John B— Hello cuz. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Elvis has left the building. Wait! He's in Benton Harbor!)

John B on June 03, 2010:

Good subject and good thoughts Jim.

We had better pray that Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas don't need replacing while Obama's still in office. That would be dangerous, especially if it happened before November.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

50 Caliber— ha! LOL. Thanks brother. I always enjoy hearing from you. You're welcome.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

Hxprof— Your words are wise and discerning. Thank you for them. You wrote:

"Americans haven't been vigilant about protecting the Constitution or retaining the reverance of God-for it is a reverance of God that maintained the American Republic. As a nation we've cast it aside"

Amen

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

Pamela99— I think Ms. Kagan has views that are more dangerous than anyone who has ever sat on the Court. Thank you for reading my work and leaving your kind compliments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

Joni Douglas— Thank you! Yea, that's the buzzword alright. Thank you for taking the time to read my work. I agree 100% with your comments. I especially appreciate this:

"many others see the Constitution as an obstruction to the betterment of the collective."

That is a sad fact. Be on guard.

50 Caliber from Arizona on June 02, 2010:

James, unfortunately the balance of progressives are not posthumous when we give them regard. Informative, thanks, 50

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

always exploring— Yes, thank God. Thank you for visiting and commenting.

Hxprof on June 01, 2010:

Well it's true professor-we can't see the insidious things unless we're vigilant ALWAYS, and Americans haven't been vigilant about protecting the Constitution or retaining the reverance of God-for it is a reverance of God that maintained the American Republic. As a nation we've cast it aside, and even Christians don't look much different from the rest of society. May God give us time before His judgement falls.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

CASE1WORKER— I totally agree with you. It is bad for judges to take supreme authority. And you are right: Hitler gave judges big power—of course after he appointed the key ones—and then relied on them to make his decisions "legal." His use of judges is little talked about but was a big reason that he was able to advance his agenda and murder all those people. That is a great observation on your part. Thank you very much for your keen insights.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

BDazzler— Thank you! Thank you very much. :)

Pamela Oglesby from Sunny Florida on June 01, 2010:

James, This is an awesome hub and finally tells the truth about men like Thurgood Marshall and Holmes. I really have my doubts about Elena Kagan as she has written things that make me doubt her belief in the first amendment, free speech. She is very pro union as well. I am reasonably sure she will be placed in the position as I think most of congress is for her but I think she is going to be a major mistake. Great hub.

Joni Douglas on June 01, 2010:

Excellent James. It is being fundamentally (that's the buzz word, right?) changed using 'baby steps,' a little here and little there. And it has worked; we haven't caught on until recently. Now, even the lower courts are taking it upon themselves to make law from the bench. Those not understanding the division of powers and the protection it affords us citizens as individuals, may not see the harm in the blurring of such a distinction. While this blurring may light some fires in the true believers of the Constitution, many others see the Constitution as an obstruction to the betterment of the collective.

As for the remarks given by reddog, those policies that she mentions, will now be handled by your friendly government who can now legally make those decisions for us. Isn't that special?

Ruby Jean Richert from Southern Illinois on June 01, 2010:

Very informative hub. Thank God, we no longer have forced sterilization.

CASE1WORKER from UNITED KINGDOM on June 01, 2010:

very inspiring. I had not realised the similarities between the US and Nazi programmes. However it is frightening when the justice(?) system is more powerful than the state

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

reddog1027— Hello to my fellow Michigander! :-)

Well, your two cents worth is an awesome contribution to this conversation!! I was nodding my head the entire time I read your words—all three times. I simply love your comments here. Thank you very much for sharing your keen insights.

BDazzler from Gulf Coast, USA on June 01, 2010:

Great Judicial summary James!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

aguasilver— I forget who said "Don't argue with fools or bystanders may not be able to figure out who is who." Or something like that. I did check out that forum, John. I think Beelzebub is in there. I'm not kidding. Who else could be that vile and yet a master at deceiving the lost. I love that you wrote:

"[You are] pulling the top of a nest of festering ants intent on destroying freedom of thought and action, time to boil a kettle and wipe them out!"

:D

James

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

allpurposeguru— Great question. Supreme Court Justices (and other judges) can be impeached (indicted) by the House of Representatives. If they are, they would stand trial before the Senate. Only one Supreme Court Justice has even been impeached, and the Senate acquitted him: Samuel Chase in 1805.

Thank you for visiting my Hub. :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

sheila b.— Conceited is hardly a strong enough word. Thank you for your perfectly pithy comment.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

SheriSapp— You are most welcome. I am well pleased that you found it to be valuable. :-)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

Loves To Read— Excellent name by the way. :)

I love to read, too. These men were not elected. They are appointed by the president and then serve for life. This is why their powers were limited in the Constitution.

Thank you for reading and commented.

reddog1027 from Atlanta, GA on June 01, 2010:

The beliefs that those of the lower classes, those with mental and physical defects and those who were to old to contribute to society was not just the philosophy of the progressive judges of the time.

It was also the policies put in place by the Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler. The mental institutions, old age homes etc were cleaned out before the start of WWII. You could not build a master race with metal defectives reproducing.

This is a philosophy still held today by many people, academics included who can not look past the color of a person's skin, their IQ or country of origin.

Although I am a liberal, I think the founding father's were very wise indeed. The constitution with it's three branches keeps any one group from seizing power and taking total control of the government. This can be seen in the many coupes in other countries where the power of the country is concentrated in the hands of the elected leaders and the military.

And one more thing, politics as everything else is cyclicle. The conservatives rein in the power of the state, the liberals cast it out again. Anyway that's my 2 cents worth.

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on June 01, 2010:

You did it again, pulling the top of a nest of festering ants intent on destroying freedom of thought and action, time to boil a kettle and wipe them out!

If you have time, take a look at his forum 'debate'

https://hubpages.com/forum/topic/44441?page=6#post...

John

David Guion from North Carolina on June 01, 2010:

I well remember "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards and conservative ire over William O. Douglas, so you have only touched the surface of possible villains. I was not aware that the judicial power grab started as early as Justice Holmes. I have often wondered: in our system of checks and balances, what checks to the executive and legislative branches have on the judiciary besides appointing its members and appropriating funds?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

James Mark— You're welcome, my friend. Just do the best you can. :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

Guest— I have read it. It does border on dangerous but then again I know of no person who has been bothered by it. With the wrong leader at the helm it could be abused, to be sure. Thanks for reading and commenting.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

Hello, hello,— You're welcome. Thank you for your kind comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

carolina muscle— Thank you! I am glad you found it interesting, my friend.

sheila b. on June 01, 2010:

What conceit they had, believing themselves so superior to 'the masses'.

SheriSapp from West Virginia on June 01, 2010:

After reading this, I feel woefully ignorant about the former members of our supreme court. Thank you for a valuable history lesson.

Loves To Read on June 01, 2010:

You certainly are a wealth of knowledge James. It makes you wonder how these men came to be voted into the high positions that they were. Considering they were against the very things that had been held in esteem by the American citizens.

Very interesting hub.

Blessings.

James Mark from York, England on June 01, 2010:

Interesting article James. I'm not managing to keep up with you (or my own writing) at the moment, but thanks for your stimulating work.

Guest on June 01, 2010:

I wish the people of the United States would collectively read the Patriot Act. The Constitution is quickly becoming a vague memory.

Hello, hello, from London, UK on June 01, 2010:

Thank you, James. for a very, very interesting read.

carolina muscle from Charlotte, North Carolina on May 31, 2010:

Another very interesting hub, James!!!!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

drbj— Thank you. Well, I sort of strive for that: to inspire folks dig further into things they are interested in. I try not to make these Hubs too long so it is just a snapshot.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

singlmomat52— You're welcome! Thank you for your gracious compliments. It makes a man feel good. :-)

drbj and sherry from south Florida on May 31, 2010:

Fascinating account, James. You have the facility of making me want to learn more about the information in the hubs you produce. Keep researching and keep educating the rest of us.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

katiem2— You're welcome and thank you for reading.

Yes, I gave a very short version but somebody (I'll go out on a limb and guess the ACLU) sued the government because a state had a 90 day residency requirement to draw welfare. The thing was, different states had widely varying levels of benefits. Michigan has some of the highest. I lived in a Michigan city nearest Chicago and after Brennan's ruling poor Chicago folks moved in droves to Michigan to get higher benefits and a lower cost of living. Anyway, in Brennan's decision written for the majority of the Court, he made welfare a "right" not a privilege.

singlmomat52 on May 31, 2010:

I wish I wrote as well as you with such knowledge.

Excellent Hub!!

Thank you again!!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

jjmyles— Thank you for being my first visitor!! I appreciate the compliment,too. :D

Katie McMurray from Ohio on May 31, 2010:

We should all learn more about politics and the supreme court I had no idea Justice Brennan created a federal entitlement to welfare such as he did and to what extent it changed our systems and policy. Thanks for the education. Peace :)

jjmyles from Pacific Northwest on May 31, 2010:

Excellent look and those who started the progressive dismantling of our constitution.

Related Articles