Supreme Court Amending the Constitution on Regular Basis

Amending the Constitution of the United is intentionally a difficult process, if it is done as was described in the document. But that's not the way it's being accomplished these days.

Here's what the framers of our Republic had in mind for those not satisfied with what was written:

You can have a Constitutional Convention, which has never happened, or you can get a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate voting for a specific amendment,  and three quarters of the state letislatures agreeing with those votes (which has been done 27 times). That's the hard way, the one that has kept our Constitution pretty much intact (remember that of the 27 amendments, 10 were Bill of Rights directions).

The Republican Supreme Court, led by John Roberts and four "strick constructionists" has set about subverting the more difficult process and today moves us closer to a theocracy than we've ever before been with this vote.

Already, Roberts and his business buddies have ruled corporations people, have seriously amended voting rights, have diminished the rights of women, have moved us ever-closer to plutocracy (government by the wealthy, of the wealthy, for the wealthy), have given police broad search authority and has made it plain that the far right agenda will be implemented in a hurry ... before anybody notices and before any of their five dies or retires.

In the past, Supreme Court rulings were taken seriously and were considered permanent, or at least semi-permanent, by jurists who regarded precedent as sacrosanct, in most cases. Our right-wing literalists, however, have their own idea of what precedent means and, even though they give it lip service at every opportunity, they are hell-bent on abandoning it when it's in the way of the business of business, which is to create a plutocracy.