In a supermarket checkout line, a copy of Time magazine bore the headline "The Supreme Court: Decisions That Changed America."

That headline tells us that the U.S. is no longer a representative republic.

As Lincoln pointed out, under the Constitution, the American government is "of the people, for the people, and by the people."  That's why all laws are supposed to come from the people's elected representatives.  If laws don't come from the Congress, the government is no longer of the people, but over the people.

If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives.  If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it's clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

If the people's representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people's representatives, the Supreme Court's decision will not, cannot, change America.  Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

Hence, only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people's representatives can the Supreme Court "change America."

What Time is celebrating is precisely the unconstitutional experiment in judicial tyranny that Americans have been living under for more than 60 years.

The people's representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage.  If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that "changed America" on these issues.

Similarly, the legalization of pornography – and the resulting exploitation of people as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved – and the transformation of the "justice" system from one that seeks to punish the guilty and free the innocent into one that cares only if minute procedural rules are followed, even if that means the guilty are freed to prey on the innocent, were not accomplished through the will of the people.  They were accomplished by rich, mostly white, mostly male Supreme Court judges.

Irrespective of one's position on these issues, one has to recognize tyranny.  Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune.  But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court.  Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.

Liberals may not care, however, since they know that conservative judges will not abuse power the way liberal judges do, just as they don't care that the Obama presidency is far more imperial than Nixon's was.  Sadly, far too many modern liberals are quite comfortable with justifying the means by the ends.

Fortunately, there are few real "liberals" in America today, which is why Obama had to lie about Obamacare and Benghazi as well as his real vision for America in order to be elected.  But we do need to educate the "low-information" voters who concentrate on the important things in life rather than the government.

So tell your neighbors that the media and the Democrats are all for having a few rich, mostly white, mostly male lawyers decide the laws of this country, even if that means ignoring the votes of the American people.  Ask them if they really want to live in a semi-monarchy where lawyers have the final say in defining what America is.

You can read more of tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.