No, Hillary, The Purpose Of The Supreme Court Is Not To Advocate Your Personal Agenda

Credit attribution:
Krista Kennell / and EQRoy /

During the third 2016 presidential debate, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton declared once again her agenda for the Supreme Court. To no one’s surprise, her objective had nothing to do with the Constitution.

As a lawyer. and former “Goldwater girl”, Hillary knows the constitutional purpose for judges and courts. However, Hillary’s admiration and indoctrination by Saul Alinsky turned her view of the courts towards social justice.

Hillary stated she wants the court to “stand on the side of the people” as opposed to the wealthy and big business. This is a rich statement, coming from a very affluent woman who asked, “What difference does it make?” about the Benghazi attack. She also outright lied about a video to the families of four Americans she allowed to die there. Apparently Hillary’s career is more important than the rights of the victim’s mothers to know the truth.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: The Bill of Rights: Amendments 1-10 to the U.S. Constitution

Maybe she’s referring to holding a Secretary of State accountable to the people; Especially one who made millions of dollars with back room donations and deals through a private, illegal email server.  FBI director James Comey spent 20 minutes listing off criminal activity of a Secretary of State to then say, ”Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Maybe Hillary means a court should be there to “stand on the side of the people” at such a time that the powerful become corrupt.

If she is for the SCOTUS championing woman’s rights over rich people, then let Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey take millionaire Bill Clinton to court and demand the judges follow Hillary’s directive.

Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason. Considering race, creed, color, sexuality or religion when rendering a verdict advances inequality. Judges are there to do just what their title describes, judge. They are yoked by the law and charged as interpreters of it. According to the Constitution, justice is administered according to the laws already written. They should not be guided by what they want it to say, but by what it actually says. If those laws need to be changed, they must be rewritten and passed by lawmakers, not judges.

The SCOTUS, as the third branch of the government, is a check and balance on the Congress and the President. They determine if the laws and executive orders executed by the other two branches remain within the parameters of the Constitution. The Court is there to restrain and correct the Congress and POTUS if necessary, not be their personal activists.

Hillary professes her support for women’s rights but wants a court that will take away their right to carry a gun. Is that because guns would give women the ability to fight against attackers like her husband? Or is it because she thinks women are incapable of handling a gun?

Hillary said she wants the court to represent all of us. Does that include the Christian bakers and photographers who are being sued by homosexuals for not participating in their wedding? How about those unborn babies she wants the court to allow women to murder by the thousands. Is she seeking justice for the grassroots Tea Party groups who were targeted by the big and powerful IRS? Does she really mean all these people will be represented too? Because so far, they haven’t been.

Hillary does believe in equality, but in the manner described in George Orwell’s Animal Farm – “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (Secker and Warburg, London, England, 1945)

Let’s be honest. Hillary’s intention is to put the Supreme Court in her back pocket as her own person advocacy group. Saul Alinsky believed that you attack the system from the outside. Hillary disagreed with her master. She believed you attacked the system by becoming the system. She’s weeks away from accomplishing a nearly 40 year plan. We’ve seen hints of it, as she was able to manipulate James Comey to inoculate every toxic email found by the FBI. Now she has set her sights on controlling the foundation of the judicial system.

Hillary wants to continue the same divisive agenda we have been living under for the past 8 years. President Barack Obama, following Alinsky’s Rules for Radials, ripped apart every inch of progress this country made since the Civil War. He even administered new tears to the nation’s fabric.

Do not be fooled. Liberal radicals don’t see us as individual Americans with all of the same rights. They see us as groups to be taught to hate and distrust each other by treating each group unequally. If we fight against ourselves, we can never fight against the elitist’s power. How better to accomplish this than to purposely choose one group over another in the higher court in the country.

But that’s just my 2 cents.


Pamela Adams

Pamela J. Adams maintains which includes her blog Liberating Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberating Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. She has been researching her personal family history for over 24 years, publishing 3 books on her family’s genealogy. Follow her @PJA1791 & You can find her books Here.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.