Behind the Lodge Door, by Paul A. Fisher
Amazing Discovery
Prejudice by Supreme Court Justices is not a thought which comes readily to mind when thinking of the American system of justice.
Yet, for at least three decades (beginning in the 1940's) the opinions of a significant number of Justices were influence by an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic philosophy when rulings were fashioned on the religion clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...")
Moreover, because of stare decisis - the legal doctrine which holds that a principle of law established by one judicicial decision is accepted as an authoritative precedent for resolving similar legal conflicts - the religion-clause opinions rendered by the Court during the 30-year epoch have formed the basis for virtually all subsequent decisions on the clause since that time.
Although many people have been outraged by the Court's decisions regarding the place of religion under the Constitution, most citizens are convinced the American judicial system is eminently fair and just.
The latter view prevails largely because of a perception that Court nominees are carefully scrutinized to assure representation on the bench of a broad spectrum of the nation's varied groups. For example, it is generally thought that certain segments of the population have a non-defined "right" to a seat on the Court. When selections for a vacancy on the bench are under consideration, careful thought is given to a "Black seat," a "Jewish seat," a "Catholic seat," and a "woman's seat," not to mention choosing jurists who are sympathetic to labor, industry, and the medical and academic fraternities.
Strangely, however, mention is never made of two other groups in society which apparently have been successful in making silent claims
to seats on the Court. Those two groups are Unitarians and Freemasons. Masons dominated the high bench from 1941 to 1971. That was an
era when traditional Judeo-Christian values were removed from the curricula of public schools - and from public life generally.
That amazing (and rarely discussed) facet of American juriprudence was discovered completely by accident when the author was
conducting research on the religion clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Masonry Unmasked, by John Salza
Masonic Court Packing
Beginning in his second term, President Roosevelt began to pack the Supreme Court with Masons. From 1937 to 1944, Roosevelt appointed nine justices, six of whom were Masons, and the other three espoused Masonic philosophy. From 1945 to 1953, Roosevelt's successor, President Harry S. Truman, another 33rd-degree Mason, appointed four justices, all Masons. Hence, of the thirteen appointments to the Supreme Court made by Masonic presidents over this period, ten were Freemasons. The next two appointments to the court, made by President Eisenhower, were also Masons.
Beginning with President Roosevlet's appoinments in 1941 and through the first three years of President Nixon's term (1971), Freemasons dominated the Supreme Court. These years marked an era of revolutionary liberalism and anti-Christian sentiment. The Masonic dominence of the court was as follows: 1941-46, five to four; 1946-49, seven to two; 1949-55, eight to one; 1956- 57, seven to two; 1957-58, six to three; 1958-62, seven to two; 1962-69, six to three; and 1969-71, five to four.
It is no surpirse that four Masons who were appointed to the Supreme Court by Roosevelt or Truman spoke in favor of the court- packing plan. These men were Hugo L. Black, James F. Byrnes, Sherman Minton, and Robert H. Jackson. Justice Jackson even admitted that he and those who shared Roosevelt's viewpoint on the Constitution had succeeded in their efforts to shape democracy in America through the appointment of "forward-looking" justices.
Freemasonry's aim was to bring establishment-clause cases to the high court so they could be adjudicated by justices who shared the same Masonic philosophy of Church-State separation. Masonry succeeded. Beginning with the Everson decision in 1947, and for the next quarter century, the Supreme Court focused on establishment-clause cases. With its newfound enthusiasm for such cases, the court systematically eroded the Christian underpinnings of American government. The Masonic dominated court took the legal doctrine of stare decicis - which holds that a principle of law established by one judicial decision must be followed in another judicial decision - and threw it out the window.
