Chuck Norris: God save the U.S. and our courts

Posted: February 01, 20101:00 am Eastern

© 2010

While the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts go head-to-head in Super Bowl XLIV at Sun Life stadium in Miami, U.S. justices and even our president are squaring off in arenas of jurisprudence from sea to shining sea.

Here are just a few recent examples:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head in dismay and mouthed the words "not true," when President Obama rebutted the entire Supreme Court in their presence and before the whole nation during his State of the Union speech. The president alleged that the court "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." (When, in fact, there are at least three accounts in the 183-page ruling that forbid its application to foreign nationals, groups or corporations. I ask you, which is worse: South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's impromptu outburst "You lie" to President Obama during his Sept 2009 address to Congress or the president's premeditated public innuendo and lie during the State of the Union that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are not protecting American sovereignty but handing over political sway to international powers?

Despite the victory of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Obama re-nominated pro-abortion activist and former NARAL attorney Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen has come under fire for calling women "fetal containers," labeling pregnant women "losers in the contraceptive lottery" and comparing pregnancy with slavery and pro-lifers with the Klu Klux Klan. In a new book titled, "The Constitution in 2020," Johnsen writes the chapter "A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020," in which she advocates a government-run health-care system in which taxpayers pay for abortion. She also favors extending our constitutional rights to terrorists captured in war and not calling the war on terror "a war."

Out in California, the war for the definition of traditional marriage is being waged in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, when more than 7 million Californians voted in favor of the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This case holds national significance because a ruling to overturn Prop 8 could lead to the nullification of marriage laws in 45 states and endanger the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This critical case is being presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker, who appears to be bent on setting national precedent with this overruling.

One thing is certain: If patriots want to perpetuate America's founders' vision, views and principles, then we need to fight for conservative judges with as much fervor as we seek new congressional representatives. The flow of political tides will only change if it incorporates alterations within the courts across our country, which have been dominated largely by liberally jaded and progressive judges