Supreme Court justices in 2022
A state supreme court opinion out of Hawaii has unleashed a “torrent of rage” against the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the state panel will take no more direction from those nine justices, even though the legal system puts the high court directly over state judicial decisions.
It’s Justice Todd W. Eddins who took an otherwise routine decision about a standard for cases when prosecutors knowingly present untrue testimony and turned it into a personal diatribe against the nation’s highest court.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out the “chest-thumping” language from Eddins wasn’t so much a declaration of “judicial insurrection,” but rather “a form of passive aggression, a pledge to minimize any orders from the [Supreme} Court described as ‘driven by agenda and intent on swiping power that belongs to the people.'”
But he pointed out, “Of course, it has been 210 years since Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) held that the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court rulings. It has been roughly 170 years since the Court ruled in Ableman v. Booth (1858) that state courts cannot overrule or obstruct judgments of the federal courts.”
Turley pointed out Eddins was “asserting the separate authority under the state constitution to render opposing opinions, presumably when those decisions do not contravene federal rights.”
Meanwhile, Eddins claimed the majority of justices “systematically dismantles democratic safeguards, steamrolls constitutional liberties, and tramples human dignity.” He proclaimed that their attack on democracy itself “does not chart the course for the Hawaiʻi Constitution,” Turley wrote.
The analysis revealed Eddins’ opinion “quickly becomes nothing short of a rave: ‘What this court has done to constitutional rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law explains why Hawaiʻi’s Constitution takes no instruction from it.'”
Eddins whines about the Dobbs ruling, through which the Supreme Court overturned the faulty Roe decision fabricating a national constitutional right to abortion.
Eddins claims that “gutted” the rights of citizens.
He demands his court will take “no guidance” from the Supreme Court, and he also lashed out at the high court’s barring racial gerrymandering and other forms of racial discrimination.
Stunningly, Eddins claimed, “The Roberts Court sees only white.”
Turley said, “The Hawaii Supreme Court will not truly stand on its own. It is part of a constitutional system that requires adherence to binding precedent, even rulings that Eddins finds obnoxious. Obviously, the state can impose its own constitutional values so long as it does not contravene federal rights and jurisdiction, which are quite broad.”
He added, “The rest comes off as using a judicial opinion to virtue signal.”
Significantly, Eddins cited the work of Ketanji Jackson, the far-left extremist on the Supreme Court appointed by Joe Biden. She’s taken to writing solo diatribes that are so far outside the lines that even her fellow liberals cannot bring themselves to join her.
A Fox News report on Eddins’ demagoguery reported his insults included, “When six justices walk away from those they are supposed to protect, state constitutions hold the line.”
He was referring to the often-assembled six-member majority on the high court.
“That is not defiance. That is the design.”
Eddins claimed the Supreme Court no longer reflects the decision in Brown v. Board of Education from 1954, that struck racial discrimination. He claimed it’s affirming the 1896 ruling that adopted racial discrimination.
His accusations then veered even further left: “The court overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends.”
Other observers expressed shock.
“The court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan wrote on X. “I haven’t ever seen something like this. And it’s not good.”
There might have been some personal resentment on Eddins’ part, as the Supreme Court recently handed the state court a major loss in a ruling on firearms.
The Supreme Court said Hawaii cannot, as it tried, to require gun owners to get a property owner’s permission before carrying a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WorldNetDaily ]
