While the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts go head-to-head in Super Bowl XLIV at Sun Life stadium in Miami, U.S. justices and even our president are squaring off in arenas of jurisprudence from sea to shining sea.

Here are just a few recent examples:

  • U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head in dismay and mouthed the words “not true,” when President Obama rebutted the entire Supreme Court in their presence and before the whole nation during his State of the Union speech. The president alleged that the court “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” (When, in fact, there are at least three accounts in the 183-page ruling that forbid its application to foreign nationals, groups or corporations. I ask you, which is worse: South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s impromptu outburst “You lie” to President Obama during his Sept 2009 address to Congress or the president’s premeditated public innuendo and lie during the State of the Union that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are not protecting American sovereignty but handing over political sway to international powers?

  • Despite the victory of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Obama re-nominated pro-abortion activist and former NARAL attorney Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen has come under fire for calling women “fetal containers,” labeling pregnant women “losers in the contraceptive lottery” and comparing pregnancy with slavery and pro-lifers with the Klu Klux Klan. In a new book titled, “The Constitution in 2020,” Johnsen writes the chapter “A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020,” in which she advocates a government-run health-care system in which taxpayers pay for abortion. She also favors extending our constitutional rights to terrorists captured in war and not calling the war on terror “a war.”

  • Out in California, the war for the definition of traditional marriage is being waged in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, when more than 7 million Californians voted in favor of the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This case holds national significance because a ruling to overturn Prop 8 could lead to the nullification of marriage laws in 45 states and endanger the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This critical case is being presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker, who appears to be bent on setting national precedent with this overruling.

One thing is certain: If patriots want to perpetuate America’s founders’ vision, views and principles, then we need to fight for conservative judges with as much fervor as we seek new congressional representatives. The flow of political tides will only change if it incorporates alterations within the courts across our country, which have been dominated largely by liberally jaded and progressive judges.

We’ve recently seen great patriot victories in states like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, but we must recognize those triumphs are only beginnings to America’s much-needed government overhaul. That is why I am backing other conservative candidates like Bob Vander Plaats for governor of Iowa, John Kasich for governor of Ohio and Judge Roy Moore for governor of Alabama.

Often overlooked, however, is the critical nature and necessity of electing regional and state justices, like the seat in Alabama once occupied by my friend, Roy Moore. Undoubtedly, readers remember him as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama who was ousted for refusing to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama State Court House. Roy’s résumé reads like a “Who’s Who?” of American life and justice: from private practice to district attorney, then circuit judge and chief justice.

More than just an amazing legal mind, he is first a true patriot and passionate family man. Raised in the house of a traditional homemaker and World War II veteran, Roy was the oldest of five children. He served in the Army during the Vietnam era and left an admired captain. Moore’s passionate and rugged Americanism could be seen from the battlefield to arenas of kickboxing and ranching back home. Roy Moore’s awesome autobiographical manifesto “So Help Me God!” is a must read for any patriot.

The U.S. needs more honest and traditional judges like Roy Moore. That is why I am encouraging everyone to support the conservative justices running for their county and state seats. Here in Texas, I’m endorsing Rick Green as justice for the Texas Supreme Court. As a former state legislator and constitutional scholar trained to defend our nation’s founding principles, Rick Green is exactly the kind of justice we need serving on the Texas Supreme Court. He and Judge Roy Moore are the type of constitutionally abiding legal eagles who walk in the legacy of our Founding Fathers and who we need serving in every state across our union.

Outside of seeking the election of true constitutional and conservative justices, we also need to voice our opposition to the White House and our representatives regarding the appointments of liberal justices, like David Hamilton, who was confirmed back in November as a federal judge to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hamilton is radically pro-abortion and an obstructionist who spent years working with and for the ACLU and ACORN. According to a Jan. 16 article in World magazine, “Hamilton ruled against Christian prayers in the Indiana legislature, ruled against a menorah in a municipal building’s holiday display, and overturned a law requiring a woman to get counseling twice before she got an abortion.” I agree with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said, “Judge Hamilton is the definition of an activist judge and is clearly not qualified to sit on a court of appeals. …[He] has used his position on the bench to drive his personal political agenda.”

Out of 858 appellate and district court judgeships, there are presently 97 vacancies or 11 percent of the lower-court positions open and available. President Obama has made 26 nominations so far, with 10 being confirmed by the Senate. But consider the power of only those 10 and how they will have liberal sway over sections of the country.

With dozens of court vacancies remaining, it’s time to fight against progressive judicial tyranny. It’s time to consider our courts as needy mission fields. It’s time to encourage our children and grandchildren to serve God and country, not only in our military and political posts but in judicial ones as well. It’s time for us and them to take back our country one court at a time by seeking an education and employment opportunities in jurisprudence.

It’s important for all American citizens to understand the immeasurable influence of the U.S. court system and what judicial issues are affecting their region and state. It’s also important to understand why conservative judges make the best judges. Not only are they more prone to interpret and apply law in the spirit and principles of our founders, but as Donna Detamore, who has served for 30 years in family law court, described, “Liberal judges have always carried with them many of the facets of corrupt elected officials: the numerous political appointments that cost litigants time and money; a cavalier approach to lengthy costly and time-consuming dockets that do not seem to get to final trial; and making new law from the bench.”

Dare I even say that, in my opinion, conservatives with a strong moral and religious code, like Roy Moore and Rick Green, make the best justices and governing officials. And I’m not alone in that conclusion, but stand in a long line of patriots stretching back to the inception of our country.

James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington, explained the relationship between religion and law:

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. … Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.

Article VI of the Constitution guarantees that “no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” But, as a matter of free speech, it is perfectly acceptable for citizens and even government officials to advocate the election of those who are devoutly religious.

As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, also appointed by George Washington, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

At very least, in light of the progressive cases now before U.S. courts, and our own president’s audacity to disrespect and lie about the Supreme Court justices to their faces during one of the most watched political primetime events of the year, we all should bow our heads and pray what the marshal of the Court repeats every time the U.S. Supreme Court justices enter the courtroom to hear arguments, “God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

(For more on how to reawaken America to our founder’s vision and plans for this country, check out Chuck Norris’ brand new – January 2010 – expanded paperback version of his New York Times best-seller, “Black Belt Patriotism.”)

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.