Main Menu

An Ideological Leftist Is Incapable Of Integrity—Totally Incapable

Weighed And Found Wanting: The Most BassAckwards Decision In U.S. Supreme Court History

Sarah Watching The Most BassAckwards Decision In Supreme Court History

It all started with,,,

An Opportune Time

In Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 1947:

A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools who benefitted from this law were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. After losing in state courts, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds.

No doubt Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black salivated on his judicial robe thinking about condemning New Jersey for reimbursing Catholic parents for their Catholic children to be transported to Catholic schools, with Catholic teachers, Catholic teaching, Catholic priests, and all other things Catholic that Democrat Hugo Black so despised.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute? Did I read that correctly?

A U.S. Supreme Court judge? Right.

  • who is supposed to uphold the Constitution? Right
  • who defends the rights of American citizens supposedly according to the Bill of Rights—without bias?  Right.
  • and who is supposed to judge blindly and fairly? Right.

How can this article claim such atrocities as “condemning Catholic parents” and “despising all things Catholic” by a Supreme Court justice? Not to mention a justice preparing to hear and decide a case involving religious liberty in the U.S.? The U.S.! For God’s sake!

It is hard to believe, but unfortunately, it is true. This article really begins much earlier than 1947, in fact, about 25 years earlier…

Sarah Watching Dissolving To The 1920s

From The White Robe Of The Klan To The Black Robe Of SCOTUS

Democrat Hugo Black started practicing law because he failed the Alabama Teacher’s Exam. Though a positive for Alabama students circa 1920’s, the country’s founding principles would not fare so well.

Black earned his bigot cred when he successfully defended a man who shot an unarmed Catholic priest in cold blood. Shortly after this, he received a pledge card inviting him to join one of the Democrat Party’s most famous organizations.

Pledging Allegiance To The Klan

Prior to wearing the black robe of the Supreme Court, Black wore the white robe of the the Democrat organization known as the Ku Klux Klan. His biographer, Roger Newman, writes of Black’s glowing induction ceremony:

With other aspiring “knights” dressed in full Klan regalia, Black marched in a massive circle with military precision. He stopped every 150 yards at one of three ceremonial stations. Finally, his circumnavigation of the flaming crosses completed, Black raised his hand in a Nazi-like salute and repeated the oath of the most deadly and destabilizing hate group ever produced by the Democrat Party.

Newman continues: He swore to “most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve” white supremacy “by any and all justifiable means and methods.”

He swore to preserve “the sacred constitutional rights” of “free public schools” and “separation of church and state.” (Remember the phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the U.S. Constitution.) Black swore to “die rather than divulge [secret information of the Ku Klux Klan], so help me God.” Raising his arm in the Nazi salute, he pledged allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan.

And history tells us that Black never broke that vow.

U.S. Senator

Later, in 1926, Black was elected U.S. Senator for Alabama. He had built a large political base in part through his delivery of 148 speeches (148!) at local Klan gatherings, or “Klaverns,” where his focus was the denunciation of Catholicism.

Contrary to what many Americans realize, especially leftists though the KKK is a leftist organization, the KKK did not horde their hatred toward blacks only. The Klan was as anti-Catholic as it was anti-black, maybe even more.

Appointed To The Court

In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, FDR, needed a “reliable” (wink wink) man on the Supreme Court. Because Klansman Black had supported FDR’s policies while in the U.S. Senate, he quickly became known as a dependable Democrat “yes” man for FDR’s socialist New Deal. Therefore, when FDR had the opportunity, he appointed Klansman Black to the highest court in the land. (Democrats legislating from the bench is nothing new.)

In his book The Lost Constitution, Mike Lee writes that by 1937, Black had not practiced law for 11 years. And he had never dealt with complex legal issues. Black was more at home grandstanding before a jury than grappling with the meanings of legal texts and constitutional principles that he was stunningly unqualified to understand. “And it showed. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone told a reporter that Black was ‘not a help to his colleagues in the first two or three years.’ The new justice ‘made blunders which have shocked his colleagues.’”

Klan Member. Bigot. Democrat. Showboat. Unqualified. FDR “yes-man.” You get the picture so far, right?

Sarah Watching Weigh And Found Wanting Most Bassackwars Opinion of the Supreme Court

Klansman Black’s Deep Anti-Catholic Fervor

By now Black’s long history of anti-Catholicism was deeply branded on his psyche. He possessed no qualms with reading far left anti-Catholic writings while on the court, in essence becoming increasingly anti-Catholic. According to his son (quoted in Newman’s biography):

The KKK and Daddy, so far as I could tell, had one thing in common. He suspected the Catholic Church. He used to read all of Paul Blanshard’s books exposing the power abuse in the Catholic Church. He thought the Pope and the bishops had too much power and property. He resented the fact that rental property owned by the Church was not taxed; he felt they got most of their revenue from the poor and did not return enough of it.

Paul Blanshard, Black’s de facto mentor, represented the most vile of anti-Catholic intolerance. Certainly not the type of author whose opinions should inform a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, Hugo Black relished in Blanshard’s no holds bar, vitriolic, anti-Catholic writings. By the way, so did Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of FDR.

Mike Lee writes: “By the time Black arrived at the Supreme Court, anti-Catholics wanted to apply the Federal Establishment clause against states. They had been waging a war against Catholic schools for nearly a century. They wanted to use it to invalidate as unconstitutional any laws that provided funds to Catholic schools. To do so, they needed only to torture its meaning, expand its scope, and apply it against the states it was designed to protect.”

And the anti-Catholics found the perfect judicial executioner—Hugo “KKK” Black. Anti-Catholic, amoral, unethical, a tradition of ideological jurisprudence, and ignorant of the bigger picture to boot—Hugo had it all! He was a socialist/humanist/secularist dream.

And that is a brief background of Hugo Black up until 1947 and the fateful Everson case.

The Everson “Opinion”

In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township was presented before the court.  The issue centered around whether or not the State of New Jersey was constitutionally authorized to reimburse parents for their children’s bus transportation to schools “other than a public school,” in this case, to Catholic parochial schools.

Well, of course, there was no way in heck that someone who expounded 168 anti-Catholic speeches at each of the 168 Klaverns in Alabama was going to vote yes for this savagery being committed by the New Jersey School Board.

But something happened.

Black found out that the court’s decision was leaning in favor of the Catholic parents 5-4. At the last minute, in a malevolent plot, Black changed his vote because he knew that he would be writing the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision.

Let’s be clear. Black stood against Catholic schools receiving aid of any kind from any level of government. However, in order to write the opinion, which he planned to twist and turn for future use against Catholics, he had to vote in favor of Catholic parents receiving aid.

As you can imagine, the Klansman’s opinion “runneth over” with illogical arguments and unwarranted conclusions. Fair interpretation of a law and logical conclusions regarding that interpretation are not possible when someone is an ideological hack (Google Sotomayor). In short, when someone has an agenda other than upholding the Constitution.

Sarah Watching Montesquiev Quote There Is No Crueler Tyranny

To fully grasp this SCOTUS perversion, understand that Hugo Black’s Anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred rivaled that of Hitler toward the Jews. Would you want someone as warped as Hitler on the Supreme Court? That’s exactly what America had in Hugo Black. Warped.

Here is anti-Catholic Black who has finagled his way to write the opinion in favor of government aid for Catholic parents, though he hated Catholics. (This stuff cannot be made up.) Justice was blinded by fanaticism. Our Constitutional republic still suffers from this underhanded move.

In reducing to ashes the Founder’s intention in the Establishment Clause, the Democrat KKKer’s inflammatory “decision” began:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. “

An abject fabrication. This statement ifs only one display of Black’s blazing incompetence as other justices had noted years ago. The Establishment Clause meant much more than to “set up a church” and it was NEVER applicable to the states. What part of “Congress shall make no…” did Black NOT understand. But Hugo was apt at playing the fool, which came naturally more often than pretense.

And the frenzied Ku Klux Klansman, much to socialists’ delight, carried out a scorched earth policy against the First Amendment’s 150-year old Establishment Clause with the  following incendiary remarks:

This Court has said that parents may, in the discharge of their duty under state compulsory education laws, send their children to a religious rather than a public school if the school meets the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , 45 S.Ct. 571, 39 A.L.R. 468. It appears that these parochial schools meet New Jersey’s requirements. The State contributes no money to the schools. It does not support them. Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

Say what?

Reading this opinion requires a double take at the end. Black finds for the Catholic parents, but then says “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Justice Robert Jackson’s Classic Dissent

Black’s opinion was so convoluted, that Justice Robert Jackson, who originally planned on voting in favor of the parents, changed his vote to “No”  and wrote a dissenting opinion. Jackson, who is considered one of the best writers to ever serve on the Court, laid out an unabashed disapproval. He castigated each of Black’s half-baked arguments and apples to oranges comparisons..

Justice Jackson didn’t ease into or set up a preface for his dissent. From the very beginning, the stinging rebuke called out the Klansman’s injudicious quackery:

I find myself, contrary to first impressions, unable to join in this decision. I have a sympathy, though it is not ideological, with Catholic citizens who are compelled by law to pay taxes for public schools, and also feel constrained by conscience and discipline to support other schools for their own children. Such relief to them as [330 U.S. 1, 19] this case involves is not in itself a serious burden to taxpayers and I had assumed it to be as little serious in principle. Study of this case convinces me otherwise. The Court’s opinion marshals every argument in favor of state aid and puts the case in its most favorable light, but much of its reasoning confirms my conclusions that there are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters. The case which irresistibly comes to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of Julia who, according to Byron’s reports, ‘whispering ‘I will ne’er consent,’- consented.’

Bull’s eye! As Justice Jackson alludes, Black jabs directly at the Catholic Church in the “undertones” of his opinion. But in the end, he finds for the Catholic parents? The obvious chicanery begs the question “Where was Chief Justice Fred Vinson?” Unless he too was an ideological hack.

Church And State Is Not In The Constitution: But It Was In Black’s Klan Vows

Sarah Watching Democrat Klansman KKK Hugo Black Reminiscing
…I , Democrat Klansman Black, swear to do whatever is necessary to uphold separation of church and state. To me that translates Catholic and state.

Intellectually honest people know that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the U. S. Constitution—therefore you won’t hear a leftist admitting that fact. Thomas Jefferson used it once in 1801 in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, a totally different context than the Bill Of Rights. For the record, Thomas Jefferson was not instrumental in writing the First Amendment. That task fell to Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth (his biography by Michael Toth is highly recommended), not as well known as Jefferson, but much more influential as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

Some scholars believe that lawyers representing Everson included the term “separation of church and state” in briefs filed with the court and that is where Hugo Black picked up the phrase.

But is that really the case.?

Hugo Black had long, long ago become familiar with the term “separation of church and state.” You could say it was burned into his brain or seared into his conscience,

Recall Black’s pledge of allegiance and KKK induction ceremony?

He swore to “most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve” white supremacy “by any and all justifiable means and methods.

He swore to preserve “the sacred constitutional rights” of “free public schools” and “separation of church and state.” He swore to “die rather than divulge [secret information of the Ku Klux Klan], so help me God.”

In a manner of speaking, the phrase “separation of church and state” was emblazoned on Democrat Hugo Black’s mind on a hot July night beneath flaming crosses and white hoods.

Klansman Black’s Bastardization Of The Establishment Clause

Why on earth would such a ravenous, anti-Catholic Klansman join a Supreme Court decision that favored Catholics? Especially from the obvious history of his amoral and unethical Democrat past?

In Our Lost Constitution, Utah Senator Mike Lee shares details included in the Newman biography describing why Black did what he did. A few are recounted here:

[The opportunity to torture the establishment clause came up when the Everson case arrived at the Supreme Court.] The only problem for Black was that at conference, six of his colleagues voted to find the statute constitutional. 

Undeterred, Black hatched a plan. By voting with the majority, he would be able to write the majority opinion, which would establish rules binding on legislatures and lower courts. In that opinion, he would apply the establishment clause to the states. And he would interpret the clause to require an unprecedented degree of separation between church and state. Sure, he would have to say that the particular statute in this case did not violate that new principle of separation. But he would be able to establish a principle that could be used against Catholic schools in every court case that came afterward. 

Black had long ago sworn before thousands of Klansmen to preserve “the sacred constitutional rights” of “free public schools” and “separation of church and state.” (dreisbach link). https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-mythical-wall-separation-how-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law Now, 24 years later, he vowed to make Everson a Pyrrhic victory for the Catholic Church he hated. “’One more victory and I am undone,’” Black said quoting King Pyrrhus whose battlefield victory over the Romans came at a crippling cost. “I made it as tight and gave them as little room to maneuver as I could,” he later explained.  (Newman, Hugo Black, 362, emphasis mine).

The result was one of the most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history… 

Fraught with errors, illogic, and lacking citation of precedents to back his outrageous claims, Black completely bastardized the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Believe it or not, Klansman Hugo Black called himself a Baptist. Only God knows the heart of a man (1 Samuel 16:7). But Jesus himself said “you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:15-20). Hugo Black was bad fruit.

Mike Lee summarizes: “Mr. Justice Black left his sinister mark on the first amendment Establishment Clause by erroneously applying the establishment clause to state and local governments(!). An amendment intended to protect state governments from the federal government was turned against the states, a mark bedeviling jurisprudence ever since. Everson remains one of the “most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history.” 

Sarah Watchng Government Cannot Treat Reglious Orgs Differently Than Public Or Non-Religious

The BassAckwards-ness That Keeps On Giving

In McCollum v. Bd of Ed, 1948, the year following Everson, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school to allow “released time” during the school day that students could elect, with permission by parents, to attend a religious education class.

Democrat Klansman extraordinaire, Hugo Black, once again wrote the majority opinion in which he had the audacity to refer to Everson’s “separation of church and state” statements, a) as if he had ruled against the Catholic parents, and b) as if all members of the court had agreed to what he had written. What a farce! In his delusional bigotry, Black reasoned because he covertly wrote the majority opinion finding FOR Catholic parents, while bastardizing the Establishment Clause at the same time, that Everson dissenters also agreed with his separationist babble.

Once again in McCollum, Black doubles down on the 14th amendment being applied to the Establishment Clause, though countless others, had rightly questioned its application to the states.

Everson remains one of the “most transparently misleading and historically inaccurate opinions in Supreme Court history. -Utah Senator Mike Lee

The remaining justices agreeing in the reversal of the Illinois State Supreme Court decision in McCollum rightly remind the court that they dissented in Everson on quite different grounds than purported by Black who did not dissent in Everson. Quite telling, none of the other Justices concurred with Black in McCollum. Justice Frankfurter delivered an opinion in which Justices Jackson, Rutledge, and Burton joined. Justice Jackson also wrote an opinion. No one concurred with Black.

Later Courts Avoid The Phrase

Though later and less partisan courts have refused to use the “separation of church and state” lingo, still the erroneous phrase haunts American jurisprudence. Progressives, humanists, secularists, and other atheists are, unlike the Supreme Court, quick to quote the phrase. For example:

The [New York] Times and the ACLU discount this perspective [of the rights of religious exercise, free speech, and equal treatment being infringed upon when they are discriminated against] because they are focused on a mid-twentieth-century theory of church-state relations, not the pluralist religious vision of our founding. Their perspective is an application of the oversimplified rhetoric of Everson v. Board of Education(1947) “high and impregnable” wall of separation between church and state and Lemon v.Kurtzman(1971) overly restrictive and subjective test of what constitutes religious establishments. This focus on no-establishment has blinded them to the peril of discrimination. (Andrew Lewis, The New York Times, Church-State Law, and Equality)

Black’s Ku Kluxism Alive And Well In Leftist Anti-American Groups

By applying an amendment written to protect state governments, from the federal government, to states, Black made the whole thing bass-ackwards. Everson opened the door for humanists, atheists, communists, and the like, to attack small local governments and school boards who normally did not have legal or financial resources to fight back. And the secularists, etc. could now do it from hundreds of miles away.

The irreligious started by attacking local schools. Since they have exhausted cleansing schools of Christianity, they have moved on to religious displays, more specifically Christian displays. Small governments without resources to fight back, “usually” acquiesced to satan’s demand. For those who did fight back, however, instead of the case being decided by a local jurisdiction, as the Framers intended, many made it all the way to the Supreme Court. And there, it all depended on the judges and who appointed them, contrary to what the current Chief Justice Roberts may stick his head in the sand and say.

Communists and Socialists in the 1940’s did a fair job of gaming the system and using the Supreme Court against America’s founding. At the time, they exploited people like Black—backward, biased, bigoted—by branding their own hatred as “Catholic” hatred. In recent years, however, it has become clear that satan had much more than Catholics in view.

Today the irreligious brand their hatred as “religious” but make no mistake, their hatred is aimed directly at Christianity. Multiple Muslim prayer rooms have been built in public grade schools and in multiple colleges. But the humanists, atheists, and communists—crickets.

Sarah Watching Leftist Anti Religious Groups Response to Muslims
Leftwing activists such as the FFRF, AHA, ACLU, SPLC, etc., who advocate for “separation of church and state” when Muslims put a prayer room in a grade school or university—they crawl back into the hole they came from and hide.

Black’s anti-American legacy, grounded in his KKK roots, live on in the many liberal, donor-funded, anti-Christian groups enjoying America’s freedom today. The ACLU, SPLC, FFRF, AHA, CAIR, and others carry on the KKK’s legacy of bigotry, intolerance, and fanaticism. Again, while enjoying America’s freedom.

These leftwing groups do not contend for minorities nor American citizens as they would have the public believe. They contend for themselves. Like their forefather, typified in Hugo Black, they contend for their selfish, arrogant, anointed, audacious, irrelevant, and sadly, empty, selves. Ironically, they enjoy 501(c)(3) tax exemptions. Now, had you rather your taxes go to a maintain a 2×2 plot of ground with a cross that costs about $150 per year to maintain? Or to these lowlifes who receive millions of dollars in donations which are their salaries.

Democrat Socialists Would Appoint Nine KKK Members To SCOTUS If They Had The Chance

Democrats such as these groups and leftist politicians denounce all that is America. They know their policies are not popular. In fact, they are rejected by common sense Americans.

That is why judicial appointments carry such significance for them—judicial activists who hold and enforce their twisted views. The left wants judges who care nothing about upholding the law, protecting American citizens, the American founding, or following the Constitution. The left wants judges just like Klansman Hugo Black, who will make bassackwards rulings and corrupt the courts—from the local level to the Supreme Court.

No one with common sense would question the absurdity of putting a freaking KKK member on the Supreme Court, or on any court for that matter. But this is just the type of person that the left seeks to appoint. The quintessential leftist appointee won’t be a KKK member proper, but the bigotry, intolerance, and maniacal ideologies will run just as deep and just as out-of-touch as that of Hugo Black.

Karma For Klansman Black’s BassAckwards Opinion

As a note of karma—that great Establishment Clause which no man, woman, or group can overrule—“Justice” Black’s words in Everson came back to, well, to bite him on his “bigoted ass.” In Board of Education v. Allen, 1968, the practice of New York to lend secular textbooks to all students, both public and private, came before the court.

Justice Byron White, 1937 Heisman Trophy runner-up, Yale Law graduate, and JFK Jr. Appointee (oh the poetic justice is killing me!), and others made up the majority upholding the New York practice. In his opinion, Justice White quoted and used exact wording from the bassackwards opinion of Everson, which allowed the New Jersey Board of Education to pay bus fare, to argue for the New York Board of Education’s loaning of textbooks.

And Hugo Black went ballistic. (some may even say “bat shit crazy.”) He wrote the following in his dissent which no one joined:

The same powerful sectarian religious propagandists who have succeeded in securing passage of the present law to help religious schools carry on their sectarian religious purposes can and doubtless will continue their propaganda, looking toward complete domination and supremacy of their particular brand of religion. And it nearly always is [392 U.S. 236, 252] by insidious approaches that the citadels of liberty are most successfully attacked.

Yes, Klansman Black, you of all people would know about insidious approaches attacking citadels of liberty. Yes, you of all people.

Democrats Nor Their Klan Members Are Suitable For Appointment To SCOTUS—Period.

Judges at all levels must have integrity. Integrity sums up being impartial and just—mandatory attributes of a Supreme Court Justice. An ideological leftist is incapable of integrity—totally incapable. Look at the leftists on the Supreme Court today. Read their opinions if you doubt their lack of integrity.

The disservice caused to the United States by the most bassackwards ruling ever made in the Supreme Court should be a stark warning that conservatives, or anyone who has gratitude for and pride in America as founded, must get out and vote. Leftists must be rejected. They must be told—point blank—by the American citizenry that they are irrelevant.

Nothing less than total defeat is an option when it comes to stopping the bassackwards group of Americans known collectively as “the left.” To stop them is to stop their failed 1800’s Marxist policies and other bassackwards barbarisms perpetuated on America.

Sarah Watching John Courtney Murray Quote Against Judicial Dogmatizing Of First Amendment 1948



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *

Pin It on Pinterest