Guest Column

Privacy vs. Due Process of Law

The Montana State Supreme Court has over the past several decades very effectively promulgated the myth of “Judicial Supremacy”

By John Fuller

In his recent screed against Montana Attorney  General Austin Knudson, the Democrat candidate for Attorney General made several claims that simply are not true. But in so doing, he provides proof-positive that the judiciary of the State of Montana is regarded as the personal fiefdom of the Montana Bar Association and the Democrat Party. The writer indirectly references the Armstrong case that the death-mercenaries claim equates all Montana citizens’ right to privacy with a woman’s unlimited right to an abortion. Armstrong only established the privacy right to a lawful medical procedure, i.e., abortion, which was legal under Roe v. Wade when the case was heard.  With the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the States now have the Constitutional right to decide as to whether an abortion is legal. To claim that the Armstrong decision establishes in perpetuity the right to an abortion is factually and legally in error. If this was not the case, the abortion mercenaries would not be so determined to pass a Constitutional amendment to enshrine it in the Montana Constitution.

The Democrats showed a renewed interest in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when they thought they could use it to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. Since they have brought up this Amendment, how about considering Section 1, which reads in part;  “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Since science has proved that upon conception a new and distinct DNA is created, by long-time legal precedent a new person has been created. DNA is used to prove all sorts of legal personal liabilities and existence. This new person is entitled to “due process of law” before its life or property can be taken. Consequently, as a minimal pre-requisite, a court adjudication (due process of law) must be held before the life of any unborn can be terminated. And it will be up to the Legislature to determine the requirements of due process, not the Courts.

The Montana State Supreme Court has over the past several decades very effectively promulgated the myth of “Judicial Supremacy.” These “monarchs in black robes,” to use Thomas Jefferson’s description of judges, have enjoined or overturned over 50 laws since 2021. This writer reminds the Democrat candidate for Attorney General that the judiciary has NO “police powers” and is dependent upon the Legislature and the Executive to enforce any decisions. For those pearl clutching believers in the supremacy of the judiciary, this writer reminds them that the People are sovereign, not the judiciary.

The most recent decisions by the Montana State Supreme Court infringing on the powers of the Legislature, the Executive, and the right of the People to be fully informed as to the extent of the power-grabbing court are examples of the tyranny that awaits if the Governor, Attorney General and honest Judges are not elected in November’s election. The Sovereign People are Citizens of Montana, not subjects of the Montana Supreme Court.

John Fuller is a Republican state senator from Kalispell.