We are in an Orwellian nation run by the self-righteous progressive movement which does not like the obey the law except when it benefits them. They run the mainstream media for a large part which dictates that whatever the Supreme Court says must be the eternal supreme law of the land. So, they are saying once it’s written it cannot be changed. It’s like the written word of God which cannot be altered according to the progressives, … that is only when it suits them.
It should be obvious that just because something is legal does not make it moral; after all the Nazis enacted the final solution or the Holocaust and anybody who acted against the legally decreed act could be arrested or even put to death. In China up until recently a person could be put to death for tax evasion or tax fraud. In England at one time if you did not subscribe to the King of England being the head of the Church of England (hence be Anglican) you could be put to death since it was an act of treason. In Saudi Arabia Sharia is the supreme law of the land and those caught committing adultery, sodomy, sorcery or apostasy can be put to death. These are legal decrees of other countries either in the past or still in act which the same progressives would disagree with. But how about the United States, you ask?
Americans are largely ignorant of the Supreme Court’s own participation in unjust laws. Are Americans familiar with Dred Scott v. Sandford or Korematsu v. United States? We only have vague memories from history class about the Dred Scott ruling but aren’t exactly told what that was. It ruled that African-Americans, both enslaved and freed, were not American citizens and were thus not permitted to vote in American elections. This without a doubt was justification for banning African-Americans from voting even after the Emancipation Proclamation along with the passing of Amendments XIII, XIV and XV. Even less people know about Korematsu v. United States which dictated that the internment of average Japanese-Americans into concentration camps was constitutional. We may be familiar about Plessy v. Ferguson which in 1896 ruled the alleged constitutionality of state-enforced segregation of schools only to be contradicted by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 which ruled the Plessy ruling of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional.
Obviously there is an abuse of power on the part of many Justices in the Supreme Court. The Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803 ruled in favor of judicial review which not only claims the Court has the right to test the constitutionality of a ruling on a lower court level, but also the usurped power to undo a law, make a law add a law or change a law. This can be clearly seen in Roe v. Wade which ruled all previous anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional. Since then the progressives have dictated that this ruling is the supreme law of the land. Just before the infamous Roe v. Wade 49 states decreed abortion was a felony except in the rare instances of danger to life, hence the exception of so-called “therapeutic abortion” . So, the majority opinion in the ruling attempted to legalize abortion on demand. Legally speaking the Supreme Court has no constitutional power of judicial review or making laws; it simply has the power to oversee trials of “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party” and in such cases it “shall have original jurisdiction” ; this means court cases involving such individuals are the original ruling. In other cases it has appellate jurisdiction .
Some will bring up the implied powers canard, but this comes from the very same who believe in the living Constitution doctrine which means the Constitution’s meaning changes according to time — a very progressive belief indeed. So, going by the progressive concept of a living Constitution they have reinterpreted this document in a way the Framers did not understand it or imply it. Thomas Jefferson scolded Chief Justice John Marshall on the Marbury v. Madison ruling which initiated judicial review by saying this .
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Congress alone has the right and authority to establish laws . Congress — which is the legislative branch — has the role of making laws and Congress alone can ratify amendments to the Constitution with 2/3 majority vote in their favor . The Constitution furthermore establishes that the “Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding” . The Constitution and the laws of the U.S. — both established by Congress and signed by the president into law — are the supreme law of the land, nothing at all about Supreme Court rulings. The purpose of the judicial branch is to enforce the law, not have the same authority as Congress. The Supreme Court can only work within already existing laws, not create new ones or undo old ones; that’s Congress’ job.
Progressives use rulings like Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges to basically say, “I want you censored because your beliefs are offensive to my almighty opinion.” This is the dictatorship of progressivism. It is based on feelings, not logic, nor on the ineffable word of God as recorded in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. It seeks to divorce the culture from God and His Church while simultaneously labeling the Church a cult when this “cult” constructed Western civilization as many historians like Hillaire Belloc have written. So, not only do they wish to violate Church doctrine by legalizing these sinful acts, but they want to go straight to the Supreme Court to do it so a small men and women in black robes can dictate to millions of Americans what is right or wrong even when many states have ruled against abortion or same-sex “marriage” for example through voting.
 Castellano, Daniel. Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade. <http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roe.htm#fn2>.
 Constitution of the United States, Article 3, Section 2
 Jefferson, Thomas. Letter to William Charles Jarvis.
 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8
 Ibid., Article 5
 Ibid., Article 6