Judge-Made Legal Rule Enables Judicial Activism

Every day secular social engineering advocates in the judiciary leverage a precedent set by an activist Supreme Court.  The Court set this precedent in the infamous case of Lemon v. Kurtzman. 

Distorting the True Meaning of the Establishment Clause

Lemon’s justices operated well beyond their Article III constitutional boundaries to distort the true meaning of the Establishment Clause. This Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In Lemon, the Court changed this clause to instead require that every government action have a secular purpose.  In doing so, the Court fortified for future judges, capacious policy-shaping privileges without accountability to the people.

Lemon’s Test Enables Judges to Invalidate Policy Informed by Sacred Ideas

Lemon’s rewriting of the Establishment Clause enables judges to strike down virtually any policy action initiated by a religious (or allegedly religious) person. To strike down a policy, all a judge must do is subjectively conjecture that religion provided the motivation. If Lemon’s test existed during the Lincoln Administration, a judge could strike down the Emancipation Proclamation on the basis that President Lincoln invoked “the gracious favor of Almighty God.”  Today, unelected judges conjure up religious motives to strike down policies with which they disapprove, even when the stated purpose is secular.

Asking SCOTUS to Restore Judicial Integrity

The Great Lakes Justice Center asked the Supreme Court today to guide the judiciary, and other branches of government, back to a sound constitutional foundation. To facilitate this possibility, the Center just filed a legal brief in the Supreme Court. This brief includes an in-depth review of the intended, original and clear meaning of the Establishment Clause. It also lucidly explains how judicial activism twisted the true meaning for political purposes.

Justice Center’s Brief Explains the Consequences of Judicial Activism  

The Center’s Supreme Court brief explains why it is important to return to the original constitutional interpretation for the Establishment Clause. It exposes how the Lemon test arbitrarily singles out religious officials. The brief also shows why allowing judges to shape policy at a whim leads to inconsistent, and therefore unpredictable, court rulings. This is not so with the original, constitutional application of the Establishment Clause.

Why Restore the Truthful Meaning of the Establishment Clause?  

The Establishment Clause, by its original reading applies equally to all people.  It safeguards the liberty of all in a way that is dependable across time, space and jurisdiction.  Only a return to the constitution can safeguard good governance under the rule of law.  And only a return to the constitution will secure the blessings of liberty for posterity.

Follow these pages over the next few days as we publish various parts of the Supreme Court brief filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center.  Learn more about the dangerous trend of  judicial activism. And then learn how we can return the judiciary to its constitutional roots.

By Nicole Katherine with William Wagner