Seeking 300,000 Americans (< 0.1% of U.S. population) to sue Congress over its constitutional duty to repair and restore the basic function of our Supreme Court, which requires FIRING (replacing) ALL NINE currently-sitting Justices.

Just jump right to the registration form and sign up, or first review any page sections below, which are provided for full transparency and full confidence.

The Purpose?  To Restore a Constitutionally-Compliant Court:

"GOOD Behavior"...  That is what the U.S. Constitution requires from each and every sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in order to retain their seat on that highest bench, as clearly specified by Article III, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution, which itself is expressly "the supreme law of the land" as per Article VI thereof, and which same Article (VI) also commands that all federal judicial officers - including those Justices - "shall be bound by oath or affirmation" to support that same supreme Constitution.

Frankly, we have one huge, unlawful mess with our current Supreme Court...  All nine Justices are guilty of warring directly against the supreme Constitution, guilty of gross incompetence as to even some basics of law, and of committing even worse acts.  The actual number of Justices is flatly incorrect, outdated and unlawful itself, and even the composition of the panel of Justices is (and has been for decades) wildly off-balance in wholly unlawful, ridiculously unfair, fully unequal misrepresentation of We The People.

There are only two (2) basic requirements in fixing the mess.  First, you can't just pick and choose any subset of these nine, but they all must be removed together.  Second, that new replacement set of Justices must be a total panel of thirteen (13) altogether, geo-balanced as one (1) Justice from each of the thirteen (13) federal judicial Circuits.

If this webpage convinces you of the urgent need to immediately fire and replace the entire current, sitting panel of the United States Supreme Court, you might choose to join the federal class action lawsuit provided below, suing to legally force Congress to fulfill its 84-years-overdue constitutional duty to correct these illegal problems.

In fact, there are actually THREE (3) different, perfectly legitimate and lawful reasons as to why the entire set of all nine (9) currently-sitting Justices of our U.S. Supreme Court are a totally, fully unlawful bunch who therefore must be replaced immediately:

REASON #1:  All nine are clearly guilty of very bad behavior.

It is beyond any reasonable dispute that all nine current Justices are neck-deep into extremely bad behavior, even of criminality concerns, and that is in addition to being clearly seen as far too ridiculously incompetent of even the basics of law, plus clearly incompetent as to their own required role within American constitutional governance.

Because it is all so painfully obvious, we don't even need to delve into any technical legal details, either.  The simple facts easily and overwhelmingly convince any adult.

First, we can touch upon some of their individual monstrosities and abominations, as committed in personal disrespect against their own offices of the public trust.  In this foul aspect, Ginsburg may be the worst, by even such acts as publicly attacking our Constitution as unworthy for modeling the new Egyptian version upon (i.e., she sided with Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the type of "constitution" they preferred...), publicly admitting she believed the purpose of Roe v. Wade was to commit genocide upon the minority populations (i.e., to exterminate all blacks, all Hispanics, and etc.), amongst other very serious public statement atrocities.  Ginsburg is also sometimes asleep during court oral arguments, and during other public state functions.  Justice Thomas is another sleepyhead during oral arguments, and has not bothered to ask a single question during oral argument in several years, while both he and Kagan were required under laws to recuse themselves out of the ObamaCare cases, but of course neither one did, as there are very serious ethical and integrity issues with the entire current crop of Justices.  For example, Chief Justice Roberts clearly cares nothing for what the 4th Amendment guarantees each citizen, when he is the person in charge of approving and greasing all functions under which the NSA continues to illegally spy on every citizen.  Why should he care about the law, really, when he openly admits that he never reads 'the fine print' on legal things, and even questions their legality because of that.  Of course, this is the same man that can't decide whether or not a tax is a tax or not a tax, and insanely decides that a law is clearly unconstitutional in multiple ways yet it is somehow still constitutional...  Likewise, examples abound for the rest of these nefarious Justices, too, like Scalia and his backwards ideas of racial entitlement levels within voting rights, Alito being sporadically rude to other Justices, scoffing at, mocking, and rolling his eyes at them, in front of the public, and he also appears to be the Justice most often appearing at political fundraisers (in the direct violation of judicial canons and other ethics laws), Kennedy is the routinely explosive "swing vote" landmine on the high Court, and an awoved enemy of the supreme U.S. Constitution he is sworn to supposedly protect and support at all times, by being the constant spearhead of unconstitutional infusion of foreign and international law into our American system (a huge naughty-no-no), aggravated by the fact that Kennedy spends his summers in Salzburg, Austria, where he teaches international law at the University of Salzburg, and attends the large annual international judges conference held there, while most of the foolishness from Breyer stems from an utterly ignorant and incompetent belief that America (in his warped brain) is a supposed democracy when in fact it is actually a republic...  Sotomayor unethically uses and abuses her position on the high Court to spend taxpayer dollars traveling around the country to promote her personal memoirs book (which, unlike other Justices, who made just a couple extra bucks on their books, has translated for her into multi-million-dollar windfalls for her personal bank accounts... and, when she should be doing her job when using the taxpayer's dime and time, instead... not to mention all the "friendly bribes" she has accepted from "fans" around the country, in the form of books, art, jewelry and other expensive "trinkets"), and frankly it's entirely (immorally) ironic that she wants to pretend herself as somehow a new "princess" in/of America to be treated with nobility and wealth, yet appears on Sesame Street to correct muppet "Abby Cadabby" that being a princess is *not* a career...  And then there's Kagan, newest flunky tainting the Supreme Court, who did not even have any judicial work experience before arrival, wrote her senior college thesis in defense and support of socialism (the direct antithesis of America's capitalism...), and guess we don't even have to mention "she" is "not gay" although her long-time lesbian partner is...  But this barely scratches the surface in abhorrently-incompatible natures of these nine, none of whom are even remotely fit enough to sit upon our nation's highest Court.

Yet, let's rather focus upon what ALL NINE of these traitors have perpetrated as a willing GROUP together in brazen criminal conspiracy against America and its laws.

To be fair, we will stick to only the actions that these particular nine criminals have perpetrated since becoming this particular group, i.e., since Kagan was brought into the group with the other eight already there.  Of these, the most poignant example surely is their treasonous cover-up for Obama's total lack of constitutional eligibility within the Presidential-validity issue.  First and foremost, if all nine of these floozie "Justices" are totally incompetent as to what the term "natural born citizen" actually means and requires..., then they are clearly far too unfit to even be Justices on our Supreme Court, in the first place.  However, they DO know that Obama cannot even possibly be a 'natural born' citizen because he simply does not have two U.S. citizen parents.  You'd better darn well fully believe that each and all nine double-checked everything as this issue began to reach sufficient public mass... so they would know, without doubt, WHICH side of the law they were going to be forced to stand on, and you would do exactly the same, too, if you were a Supreme Court Justice confronted with the possibility of such an explosive case coming your way.  You would certainly make sure that you knew, or learned, everything you might need to know - believe that, and exactly the same, believe also that all nine of these people certainly made sure they knew everything they might need to know on this issue.  For "newbies" to this all-important issue, here is a good and detailed, fairly comprehensive webpage containing most of the relevant facts and law, but the simplified version finally boils down to this:  the future U.S. Presidential candidate in question must've been born unto two (both) parents who - before the person in question was born - were both and already each any one (1) of the three (3) levels of U.S. citizenship, themselves (natural born, native born, naturalized).  It takes BOTH parents to either be and/or become fully-legal U.S. citizens, themselves, first, and THEN to give birth to a baby who is therefore then - and only then - an actual "natural born" citizen.  These nine crooks within our Supreme Court already KNEW that Obama was not eligible for the Presidency, just the same as they KNOW that Rubio is not eligible (his parents were not naturalized until after Marco was born here in the U.S.), they KNOW that Jindal also is not eligible (Bobby's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth in Baton Rouge), and they already well KNOW that Ted Cruz is not eligible for the U.S. Presidency, either (Cruz was born in Canada, and his father did not get naturalized until 2005).  ALL NINE of these "Justices" already well know that Obama is NOT a lawful President, i.e., they all know full well that he is an unconstitutional impostor, and they are quite fully aware of their own high treason against the United States.

You can explore our Migrant Obama page for more ineligibility facts and law, but there's another big point here regarding the ROLE of the Supreme Court:  Anytime they are confronted with any issue of qualification for the Presidency that is serious enough to cause concern amongst significant portion of the citizenry, it is their full, absolute DUTY to get to the bottom of that issue as fast as possible, for their legal duty, AS the Justices of our Supreme Court, is to protect the Presidency, and the American people; to rule that either no such issue legally exists or to disqualify the person in question.  Their solemn DUTY and JOB is to eliminate all cloud of validity within the legal sense just as fast as humanly possible, one way or another, period, plus - once again - if all nine (9) of these so-called "Justices" actually do NOT know their own duties with respect to this all-important issue, then they are all obviously much and far too incompetent to even be on the Supreme Court, in the first place.

No, the simple, clear truth is that they ALREADY know the answer to the question, and they are desperate and/or have been ordered by the powers-that-be to AVOID this question at all costs, so that it will not get answered in the legal sense, since that would also tend to expose the upper leadership within BOTH dominant political parties as deep into conspiracy and collusion, you see (which, of course, they are).

So that is why these nine traitors have all willfully committed gross derelictions of duty, over and over again, every time yet another Obama-eligibility case is brought within their sight.  But the foul stench is even worse, because in each of these many Obama eligibility cases, all of them, all across the entire country, it has always been federal government attorneys, i.e., U.S. Attorneys (well, typically the Assistant U.S. Attorneys...), who all work within DOJ, that have provided the defense for Obama, as most everyone well knows by now.  But, uhm, that's a huge, very illegal problem.

This unlawful defense of Obama is national treason and fraud by Eric Holder and his DOJ attorneys, within ALL of the Obama eligibility cases so far, because, you see, the simple truth is that, in any case regarding any allegedly improper citizenship issue of any person resident within the United States, the exclusive legal duties and powers to prosecute someone like that fall solely under the DOJ, via the relevant sub-agencies, like INS, ICE, and so forth.  In other words, every time wherein any words like "oath", "citizen", "loyalty", "eligibility", "qualifications" and so forth come up in context for the alleged improper residency of any person living within America, it is the DOJ's legally mandated duty to prosecute that person under available law enforcement criminal procedures... never, ever to actually defend that person, in any way, shape or form, and so every time DOJ did defend Obama, it was a direct conflict-of-interest, a direct dereliction of mandated duties, total fraud, treason against sworn oaths, and so forth.

ALL NINE of these Supreme Court "Justices" KNOW full well that federal laws mandate DOJ to prosecute Obama over his citizenship and eligiblity issue...  Indeed, as another 'federal employee' the DOJ has even additional mandates under law to go after Obama and prosecute him, in the context of alleged use of false citizenship, and therefore of the invalidity of his worker status within the United States.  All nine "Justices" are very well aware that INS, ICE, and so forth are units of the DOJ, and - once again - IF they do NOT know this, then they are all obviously far too incompetent to even be on the Supreme Court, in the first place.  They KNOW that Eric Holder and his DOJ attorneys are willfully and knowingly engaged in direct fraud and high treason over the impostor Obama, and everytime another of the eligibility cases has reached their own doorstep, when they see again that the DOJ attorneys are defending Obama over his citizenship issue, they KNOW that this is flatly illegal... they KNOW it is another criminal count of high treason, yet again, but of course ALL NINE just continue looking the other way...

Indeed, Sotomayor and Kagan are not constitutionally-valid Justices, because Obama is not a constitutionally valid President, duh, hence their nominations to the Supreme Court were never valid - in the first place - and are therefore void as a matter of law, and yet the other nine "Justices" already know these two are invalid, but say nothing.

And then finally, to wrap up with these relatively FEW examples of their overall, utter imcompetence combined with total lack of any ethics, morals or integrity, we'll further demonstrate by discussing four selected, recent cases this particular group of Naughty Nine "Justices" have perverted beyond any semblance of actual justice and rule of law.

Ridiculously, not a single one of these nine "Justices" apparently even understands the most very basic construct of our/their government, because they obviously don't even recognize basic differences between our three Branches of government, i.e., when all of the various ObamaCare cases have come before them (have reached their Supreme Court level), not a single one of these so-called "Justices" ever bothered to recognize that ALL of these previous ObamaCare cases are all flatly and absolutely void for lack of proper parties... all of them... because in ALL of those ObamaCare cases, all the plaintiffs sued various Executive Branch units of government, instead of properly suing the Legislative Branch of government...  ALL nine of these "Justices" are SO blind, and SO incompetent, that not a single one of them recognized the clear difference between these two distinct Branches of government...  See #5 here for summary info, and that linked court filing (the Petition itself) for full details.  All nine are utterly incompetent.

Before the ObamaCare circus, there was Citizens United, in which this Court incredibly struck down a popularly supported, bipartisan effort to place limits on the ability of the wealthy to dominate American political discourse.  Income inequality is a fact of life in a capitalist system.  But, when it comes to choosing our elected representatives the people are supposed to stand on equal footing.  Your right to control your destiny, by electing people who share your visions and values, is not supposed to depend on the fatness of your wallet.  But now, thanks to these five traitors against their own oaths and offices, it does, with thanks also to those other four traitors, who only 'dissented' their written opinions - but, didn't bother to press for impeachment, criminal charges, or other accountability against the other five.  By ruling that corporations have a First Amendment right that magically prevents Congress from regulating how much money they can spend to support political candidates or causes, this ridiculously destructive high Court propped up a corporate regime over our elections, where the voices of the wealthy drown out all the rest.  Business entities do NOT vote within elections - ONLY the human people vote!  By this incredible landmine of total destruction, via Citizens United, the predictable Pandora's Box result was nauseatingly clear to each American throughout 2012, to the point of utter disgust by everyone, everywhere... as various SuperPACs then flurried all kinds of dishonest political ads, in total saturation all over America's airwaves, so allowing these so-called 'unaffiliated' SuperPACs to just freely engage in total chaos, attacking each other's candidates with all sorts of wild lies and deceptions, without any legal accountability, because of this absolutely absurd ruling within and by Citizens United.  These nine "Justices" are totally worthless and grossly destructive of America, including both the five that insanely ruled in the majority and the four others - who did nothing to stop this clearly-predictable insanity train wreck.

Recently, the incredible "Prop 8" nonsense ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry completely obliterated the previously indisputable sovereign right of the People within any given State or Commonwealth to decide their own issues by popular vote, in this case, the eight million Californian voters, representing the Will of the People, who had already decided the legal question by majority vote binding under state law, once and for all, plus the 100% backwards DOMA ruling via U.S. v. Windsor is completely unlawful in direct comparison to same-day ruling in the Prop 8 case, in that if the government refuses to defend its own laws... then the Supreme Court has "no jurisdiction" to go any further, or it might, depending on which way the wind is blowing...  Think!  This ridiculous split-personality Court ruled on that issue in one way, in one of these two cases, but, upon the exact same issue, also ruled the opposite way in the other...

Indeed, these Prop 8 and DOMA decisions together clearly prove that (at least) over half of these nine "Justices" have absolutely no respect, nor truth, ethics, morality or integrity, for their own claimed religions, i.e., at least over half of these nine are fully and already proven - by their own hands - to be completely dishonest and fraudulent about even their own supposed religious faiths, which are but dishonest disguises, as while six (6) of these current "Justices" claim to be Catholic, and the other three (3) "Justices" claim to be Jewish, the simple and obvious truth, to the direct opposite, is that no actual Catholic, and no actual Jew, would EVER betray their own faiths and somehow find magical reasoning to support and/or condone ruling FOR homosexuals.

More than 100 law professors from around the country have signed a letter calling for a new ethics law that would be binding on all Justices of the Supreme Court, and with good and overwhelming reason, for these Naughty Nine are clearly corrupt, deep into multiple acts of high treason, embarrassingly incompetent (even about simple basics of our laws), ethically devoid, morally bankrupt, betrayers of even their own claimed religious faiths, and far, far worse than mere "common criminals" - because common criminals are not expected to always be shining examples of honesty and integrity.

Not a single one of these current "Justices" are even so much as remotely fit for any office of the Public Trust, let alone in the nation's highest judicial court...  They have collectively shattered any hope for reliance in lawful and sensible results of law, and they must obviously all nine be removed and replaced immediately, no matter what, for they are, all nine, clearly and deeply guilty of very "bad behavior" upon America.

REASON #2:  There are supposed to be 13 Justices, already...

Congress is responsible for setting the actual number of Supreme Court Justices (the main point of this class action lawsuit), the creation of all federal courts, realignment of any federal courts as needed (splitting or merging Districts), and all of the annual funding appropriations and spending thereof.  Congress has always been master over the federal courts, and sets the numbers of each type of federal judge, top to bottom.

In 1789, when America was still brand new (with much smaller land mass), Congress created the federal court system by passing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which included only three (3) different Circuits to divide the new Colonial States up, but starting that off with six (6) Justices on our new Supreme Court.  Sadly, that was quickly realized as a bad match in practical functions, and so already by 1801-02, Congress furiously went through multiple versions of corrective Acts, but all of those variations had this primary thing in common - matching one (1) Supreme Court Justice per each one (1) federal court Circuit, i.e., all of these revisions included bumping up the total number of Circuits to six (6) also, so there would be a one-to-one ratio match to the number of Supreme Court Justices.  So finally after that, things then functioned satisfactorily.

As our country and the overall land mass grew, by adding new States here and there, Congress therefore routinely adjusted this matching number pair for the Circuits and the Justices.  In 1807, Congress added a new Circuit and a new seat on the Supreme Court, so both were bumped to seven (7) apiece.  In 1837, Congress caught up with their timely duty and bumped both by two, for a total of nine (9) Circuits and nine (9) Justices on our Supreme Court.  And in 1855, the same way, Congress adjusted both the number of Circuits and number of Justices upon our Supreme Court, to ten (10) apiece, still matching, still functioning properly...  That's right, we've had ten Justices before, i.e., we've had more than nine (9) Justices upon our Supreme Court, already.

Then, in the immediate aftermath of Civil War and first stages of the "Reconstruction" era, apparently the North was in the mood to punish the South, and so that particular Congress decided to try rearranging everything again.  During 1866-1869, Congress first desired to cut the number of Circuits and Justices down to seven (7) apiece, and two Supreme Court Justice seats were lost by attritions in 1866 and 1867.  However, by 1869, Congress had readjusted yet again, and so the Circuits were redivided into nine (9), and with that same, still matching one-to-one ratio with nine (9) Supreme Court Justices also, and that is the way it stayed for the next sixty (60) long years...

But, in 1929, after several newer States and population had been added, Congress finally picked up ONLY HALF of its very-belated duties, and increased the number of Circuits to ten (10), by dividing the old, previously-larger Eighth Circuit, to create a new Tenth Circuit, but failing to increase the number of Justices to match in ratio.

Similarly, in 1980 an Eleventh Circuit was established, by another belated Congress catching up to these duties, to include three states that were formerly a part of the older, larger Fifth Circuit.  However, once again, Congress failed to complete that duty, by failing to increase that by-then-already-skewed mismatch for Justice seats.

The unique DC Circuit, similar to the eleven numbered Circuits covering the 50 States and Commonwealths, survived the 1801 "Jeffersonian purge" of the U.S. federal court system, but it was never before counted as an equal need within the one-to-one ratio matching for Justices.  However, we believe that both, the sheer amount, and a more specialized type, of work for the DC Circuit fairly does warrant equal treatment, along with all the numbered Circuits, for consideration of representation upon the Supreme Court.  Finally, the newer "Federal Circuit" was established by Congress in 1982, and doesn't have geographical boundaries, but covers the entire nation in certain subject matters such as patents and trademarks, federal claims, international trade and other things.  We likewise believe the sheer amount and type of work within this thirteenth, Federal Circuit fairly warrants equal treatment within this same update by Congress.

Today, our entire federal court system is pretty much forever cast in stone, consisting of the thirteen (13) different federal Circuits, as seen upon this color-coded USA map:


While an argument could be plausibly made that Congressional intent, history, and implementations favor only bumping the Supreme Court up to eleven (11) Justices, the overall, better solution is by including all thirteen (13), precisely because we do want completeness of coverage in overall skills, experiences, types of cases, and so forth via the total panel of Justices, and we must be comprehensive to be complete.

Moreover, we further seriously DO want to include the DC Circuit and Federal Circuit within a total panel of 13 Justices, because that would finally stop the DC-stacking upon our Supreme Court, which currently has FOUR of the nine all last working right there, in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (just down the street), prior to nomination.

REASON #3:  The States/People are not fairly represented.

Neither the States, nor the People, have fair and balanced representation upon our same Supreme Court that belongs in legal right to all of the States and People, and naturally, this is an untenable, wholly unacceptable situation that must be corrected.

DID YOU KNOW?  Including the current Naughty Nine, there have been a total of 112 Justices on our United States Supreme Court.  But, 62 of those 112 (55.4%) have all come from just the 11 Atlantic Coast States: NY (18), MA (8), NJ (6), PA (6), VA (6), MD (5), SC (4), GA (3), NH (2), NC (2), CT (1), and ME (1); and 36 of the remaining 50 Justices (72%, or 32.1% of all 112) have come from these 7 States: OH (10), TN (6), KY (5), CA (4), IL (4), AL (4), and MN (3)...  Three other States (AZ, IA and MI) have had two Justices apiece, and just eight more States have had only one.  Yet, a whopping twenty-one (21) of our fifty (50) sister States have NEVER had anybody eventually become a high Justice, EVER... that's 42% of our States that have never been represented by anybody within our "fair and balanced" Supreme Court... ever.

That all translates into the fact, that of the current nine Justices, if you go by "birth State", only four of our thirteen different federal court system Circuits around the country (2nd, 3rd, 9th and 11th) are represented upon our Supreme Court, and not even one of the other nine Circuits has any representation, whatsoever.  And, if you sort by "the last Circuit working environment" for each of these Naughty Nine, only five of the thirteen Circuits are represented upon the high Court (the DC Circuit, 1st Circuit, the 2nd, the 3rd, and the just-as-liberal 9th Circuit), and none of the other eight Circuits has even a single representative currently sitting upon the high Court.

The current nine (9) Justices come from only a total of just four (4) of the fifty (50) States, with a whoppingly-unfair four (4) of those nine (9) from ultra-liberal New York, two (2) from next door progressive-liberal New Jersey, two (2) more 'Justices' from radical-liberal California, and then there is Thomas, the lone high Justice from anywhere else (Georgia).  Again, a whopping FOUR (4) of the current Justices also last worked at the nearby, liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, i.e., already right there in DC..., before being nominated for their own new Supreme Justice role down the street (including Thomas).  Four of the current nine!

But the overtly-overwhelming liberal political influences upon our entire Supreme Court is even MUCH worse than all that...  For their legal educations (law schools attended), six of these so-called 'Justices' went to Harvard, in ultra-radical-liberal Massachusetts, and the other three went to Yale, in liberal Connecticut...  And, for their business degrees and/or other colleges attended, 'Justice' Thomas is the lone exception with religious schooling in MO and IN (yet, that did not seem to prevent future sex scandals involving Anita Hill and other women, apparently in multiple government jobs...), but for all other eight "Justices", those schools include only Princeton (NJ), Rutgers (NJ), Stanford (CA), Georgetown (DC), Columbia (NY) and Cornell (NY), i.e., ALL OF THEM as highly-liberal schools, sitting in liberal areas.

Well, that's not exactly true - four of these nine traitors have also attended foreign universities, another one practiced international law, and two of them have taught international law, for a combo total of six of these nine deeply indoctrinated in the liberal socialism of European countries (i.e., England, Swizterland, Austria, etc.).

Oh, and we almost forgot to mention...  four of these Naughty Nine have directly worked for and with the anti-American, anti-traditional-values, anti-citizens-rights Department of Justice, by the way, too, so let's not forget that additional tainting.

GET THE PICTURE??  The short story is that ALL NINE of the current crop of these crooked jurists (with the sole exception of Thomas) come from very liberal States, ALL NINE attended (and lived, and played, and socialized, plus made connections, and so forth, at...) liberal colleges and universities, the last working environments with EACH of these Naughty Nine were in the most liberal Circuits of our country, two-thirds (6 of 9) have been deeply indoctrinated (tainted) with international law (i.e., heavily liberal, even socialism [anti-capitalism, i.e., anti-American] beliefs), four of these nine have been indoctrinated by formal DOJ employment, and all nine 'Justices' represent only 4 of the 50 States, and with a whopping four 'Justices' all coming from just one of those four States (NY, which has already had way more Justices than any other State in history, more than the next two States combined).

THERE IS NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLING either "fairness" or "balance" or "wholeness" upon our Supreme Court, and that is precisely the huge problem that America has had for several decades now, since at least the mid-twentieth century.

Human nature is automatically continuing to do things the way you've been taught, and ALL NINE of these Justices - including Thomas - have been extensively trained, indoctrinated by and worked in and for hard-core liberal political environments and perspectives, EACH and ALL of them for many years before joining the high Court.

For a very long, long time now, We The People have not had any authentic, actual representation of demographic values upon the Supreme Court from any portions of the Sun Belt (except CA), none from our Western Frost Belt, none from most of the Rust Belt, none from our Great Lakes, none from the Bible Belt, none from our Corn Belt, none from the Mississippi River Valley, none from our Midwest, none from the Allegheny Mountains, nobody from our Ohio River Valley, none from the Cotton Belt, none from the Great Plains, nobody from our Rocky Mountains, none from the Deep South, none from the Southwest, nobody from the Missouri River Valley and in fact, nobody at all from within our entire Louisiana Purchase Territory, for that matter.

Instead, since after World War II, our Supreme Court has been basically dominated from a set of highly-liberal, major metropolitan areas, including (from West to East) both San Francisco and Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, New York City (also including the northern New Jersey suburbs), and Boston, and that does help explain why both: (a) the religious affiliations claimed by the current Naughty Nine are also completely lopsided and unfairly mispresentative of our nation's actual religious faith demographics; and (b) why these Naughty Nine are so liberal that most actually go directly against what their claimed faith clearly teaches - and why they apparently have no qualms for committing treason, other crimes, and generally lie, cheat, and defraud the law and their oaths, instead of upholding them with honor and integrity.

The most recent Pew Research report on U.S. religion demographics clearly reveals that our nation currently includes the following:  51.3% Protestant, 23.9% Catholic, 1.7% Jewish, 1.7% Mormon, a variety of other religions at only fractions of a single percent each, plus another 5.8% who are "religious" but unaffiliated, then those as secular unaffiliated at 6.3%, the agnostics at 2.4%, and the 1.6% who are atheists.

Obviously, this panel of nine Justices who count themselves as consisting of six (6) Catholics and three (3) Jews does not come even remotely close to fairly and truly representing America.  For nine Justices, the correct makeup should be roughly 5 Protestants, 3 Catholics, plus 1 as either a Jew, Mormon, or Episcopalian/Anglican.

For thirteen Justices in the new replacement panel, we might expect to see roughly like 7 Protestants, 4 Catholics, plus whichever 2 of those other 3 (Jewish, Mormon, Episcopalian/Anglican).  The current panel is not even close to fair representation.

The final demographic is simply the two genders, male and female.  The current six men and three women obviously do not fairly match the roughly 50-50 equivalency within gender balance of the overall, general population.  However, as far as federal judgeships go, this 2/3rds to 1/3rd coverage is actually, in fact, right on the money, compared to current gender ratios within the federal judiciary.  Fifty-two of the 163 active judges currently sitting on the thirteen federal courts of appeal are female, or roughly 32%.  And, approximately 30% of the 680 or so active United States district (trial) court judges are women.  So, women being roughly one-third of the Supreme Court jurists is actually the ONLY fairness and balance parameter that is acceptable and reasonable via the current panel, because they fail all other balances miserably.

SOLUTION:  Full overhaul with 13 new Justices, 1 per Circuit.

If you've read the above, you already know what the solution must be...  It obviously must be:  (a) remove all Naughty Nine current 'Justices' in our Supreme Court, asap; and (b), replace them all with a fully new panel of thirteen Justices, with one Justice coming from each of the thirteen different federal court system Circuits - and further, to be more precise, that "Justice per each Circuit" means that he or she has spent at least "X" number of years still continuously working within that Circuit in one or more judicial capacities for either/both the federal and/or state court systems of that Circuit for an actually authentic and reasonable familiarity with the laws, values, and people in that demographic area (Note: That "X" number will be determined by majority vote of the class action plaintiffs, via the first 50% of votes on the registration form below).

In America, ALL of the States and Peoples are supposed to have equal and fair voices within the representation by their government officials, and that does include all three Branches of our federal Government.  ALL of the States and Peoples have reasonably fair input, together, into who becomes each next President, i.e., the Executive Branch, and ALL of the States and Peoples have reasonably fair and equal voices and input in who are their elected Senators and Representatives, i.e., the Legislative Branch.  And likewise, for the Judicial Branch of our federal Government, ALL of the States and the Peoples are supposed to have reasonably fair, equal voice and input into that as well.

In addition to the basic requirement of one Justice authentically representing each of the thirteen Circuits, the entire panel should also reasonably reflect the approximate religious demographics of America, and also reasonably reflect one-third or so women upon that same full panel of Justices, i.e., hopefully either four (4) or five (5) female Justices in the entire thirteen (13) Justice panel comprising our new Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the class action lawsuit will be done as follows:  All registrants of the sign-up form below will be counted amongst the plaintiffs, together as the "We The People Voluntary Association" simplified entity suing Congress, under the single-sentence statutory authority of 28 USC 1361, using a simple and straightforward Complaint and demand for Congress to, once again, complete its very belated duties on these matters and perform another update to the short federal statute controlling the number of Justices upon the Supreme Court, 28 USC 1, which currently reads:

"The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum."

The lawsuit will be filed within the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and service upon the Defendant, Congress, will be made upon counsel for each and both houses of Congress, i.e., upon the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, and upon the House Office of the General Counsel, the proper procedure to sue Congress.

In addition to the above required, formal legal service upon the two Defendant parties (the Senate and the House), each and every single Senator and Representative, and the lone DC Delegate, will be sent a certified mail package containing notice of the suit and brief description, etc., along with a printed simple listing of their own constituents who are co-plaintiffs in this action, plus references to each of the three (3) candidates, from the table below, who are the choices for Justice from their own particular Circuit.

The lawsuit will demand: (a) That the current Naughty Nine be terminated, effective immediately, removed from office, and, that all current and future promised salaries, benefits and other taxpayer-funded services be revoked and cancelled in permanency for each of these current nine; (b) That the current statutory language of 28 USC 1 be updated to read "twelve" instead of "eight" associate justices, and likewise, to say "nine" instead of "six" for a quorum, plus add appropriate language to ensure that, in the future, when a given President shall nominate for a replacement Justice that said candidate will be authentically from that same Circuit of the seat being replaced; and (c), to immediately cast and tally their respective vote sets to determine and install the new Supreme Court panel of thirteen Justices, with (d), said votes automatically constituting and serving as the full Senatorial judicial approvals normally performed.

Each federal Senator and Representative gets a single vote towards their own Circuit's new Justice.  On the table below, using the Second Circuit as an example, that Circuit covers Connecticut (which has 5 federal Representatives), New York (which has its 27 federal Representatives), and Vermont (which has 1 federal Representative).  That is 33 Representatives, plus 2 Senators from each State, for a grand total of 39 votes to be cast for that Circuit's new Justice...  Those Senators and Representatives will each cast their own vote for either Judge Pauley, Judge Preska, or Judge Underhill, and the one with most votes shall be the new Supreme Court Justice representing that Circuit.

In likewise manner, each of the eleven (11) numbered Circuits, those covering the 50 States and Commonwealths, shall have their new Justice selected, and in case of any tie within a particular Circuit's votes, the highest senior Senator in that judicial Circuit (with the most years of service as a Senator) shall cast the additional, deciding vote.

For determining the new Justice representing the DC Circuit, ALL of the Senators and Representatives shall again each have one vote (for 534-535 votes regarding this one new Justice), and the DC Delegate, Eleanor Norton (D), shall also have one vote, but her vote will be counted twenty-six (26) times.  This is the number to make up even the difference between the current, overall counts as between all Democrats and all Republicans in both houses of Congress combined (D = 253 total, R = 280 total, but add 2 x Dem for herself plus MA-5, which is guaranteed Dem on election).  Likewise, the new Justice for the DC-based Federal Circuit will be selected in the same manner; Yes, both "Independent" Representatives will also cast their single votes like all other Senators and Representatives, and in case of any ties in either of these two elections for new Justices, that entire vote will be repeated until a winner is finally determined.

THIS IS THE TABLE LISTING ALL 39 *APPROVED* CANDIDATES, AS 3 PER CIRCUIT:


WHY THE PARTICULAR 39 CANDIDATES ABOVE??  The author of this webpage, and of the class action process detailed thereon, has a fairly unique perspective and comprehensive familiarity with a wide number of the current federal judiciary across the nation (see the "About" note at very bottom of page).  As such, an initial list of some one hundred and ten (110) different federal and state judges were eventually whittled down to the remaining 39 candidates listed on the table above.  The criteria for selection included, first and foremost, an ability to generally maintain sufficient or better actual and honest compliance with the federal Constitution, even despite any personal feelings or expectations of political labeling regarding a given matter.  This author finds that labels like 'Democrat' and 'Republican' are much more appropriate when it comes to politicians, but such lables are not nearly so apt or practical about judges, who deal with the entire realm of issue possibilities and experiences - unlike politicians who do not.  The selection criteria also included a certain honest flavor of boldness to rule decisively and persuasively, with authentic and compelling theories, along with argument and authorities to back that up well.  Each final candidate also has made one or more exemplary rulings, within just the past few to several years, that particularly and exceptionally appealed to this author's keen sense of integrity within constitutional compliance.  NO judge will ever be perfect, but, there DO exist some fewer out there who are noticeably above and beyond the rest..., and further, this author recognized need for healthy blending of political thought and experience, and the extra benefits thereof, when the entire resulting panel of Justices shall have above-average integrity, regardless of the vote outcomes.  This author is confident that any combination of winning results, from the thirteen sets of candidates above, will certainly, in fact, be able to function as an honorable, alert, fair and reasonable, constitutionally-compliant panel of Supreme Court Justices that all citizens can trust.

THE LIST IS FINAL, and shall be used as the only and actual list of candidates per each Circuit.  Congress has already demonstrated and clearly confirmed the public's longstanding lack of trust in them, in all too many ways.  Particularly, Congress has proven its general inability to neither screen before the fact, nor impeach after the fact, total impostors seeking control of our White House and nation.  And, Congress has likewise failed to maintain its duties in this matter of proper number of Justices, further failing to impeach, let alone control, any of the outrageous current crop of Naughty Nine tainting our Supreme Court with extremely "bad" behaviors.  In this circumstance, Congress has forfeited any basis with which to - suddenly - claim full and miraculous integrity, so as to produce any new list of candidates that the public citizenry could even begin to trust as not politically motivated in at least one way or another.  Moreover, the sheer time constraint forbids considering anything else than the already-exhaustively-researched list above, since, by the date that this case is actually filed with the federal courthouse clerk, the court proceedings will already be merely a formality, because Congress, the general public, and the media will already be well discussing this historic event about to happen any moment...  Further, these Members of Congress will all pretty much know already, by then, who they are going to vote for, so the whole thing may only take a week to ten days or so after the date that this case is formally filed and technically live and pending in court for legal relief.

In the astronomically-unlikely event that a listed candidate for any particular Circuit would actually decline this very rare and prestigious opportunity, not to mention his or her answering of an entire nation's call into service..., then that Circuit's vote will proceed between the remaining two candidates.  In the doubly-highly-unlikely event that a Circuit suffers two losses of candidates, this author shall provide the selected alternatives, to bring that Circuit set back up to a full three candidates, by updating the table above, and, if the case has already just been recently filed, by immediately providing the appropriate notice to the court and both general counsel offices for the Senate and House, who will be further directed to promptly inform the corresponding Members of Congress affected.  In this situation, it is very unlikely, even with higher, more advanced ages of some fewer of the candidates included, that some previously-unpublicized, serious personal impending health or family issue might induce maybe just one or two of all 39 of these candidates to have to decline the transitional move into living and working in Washington, DC.  But, just in case, the solution was given.

The corresponding Members of Congress shall perform the actual voting upon and within each Circuit set of candidates, for that is by far the most appropriate solution, and within their purview.  HOWEVER, it is the constitutional right of every American towards directly engaging in the political process, by freely contacting, canvassing, and/or campaigning their own Senators and Representatives, in order to influence their votes upon selecting the final candidate that will represent them and their own corresponding Circuit within the Supreme Court, and this is strongly encouraged.

REGISTER:  Sign up NOW for this historic class action lawsuit.

The full federal litigation package will be completed and filed within thirty (30) days of reaching 50% of the recommended number of qualified adult U.S. residents (300,000 or more) signed up and registered as the fellow class action plaintiffs across America.

As a citizen who truly cares about constitutional compliance within our United States Supreme Court, you are asked to do two things:  (1) Please register and vote, using the form below; and (2) Tell everyone you know, to also do both of these two things.

The recommended number for 300,000 participating U.S. residents is to help ensure an average of at least several hundred names of actual, corresponding constituents, for each and every Representative, and likewise also to help ensure at least a few to several thousand constituents for each and every Senator, upon each of those multi-page printed lists of constituent names they each will be receiving - in short, for raw and pure motivational purposes in so many active voters considering 2014 elections.

USE THIS FORM TO REGISTER AND CAST YOUR VOTES:


For the past 15+ years, the author has been a constitutional law scholar and litigator, assisting clients in the courts of 30 some States, top to bottom, in some 2/3rds of the nation's 90 federal court Districts, in all 11 of the numbered federal Courts of Appeal, and in the U.S. Supreme Court several times on constitutional issues from either state or federal courts, presently there again on the right to jury trial in real estate disputes.