Posted on 05/29/2015 10:09:08 AM PDT by Ray76
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states, says U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
“It’s called impeachment,” he told WND on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Judge Moore is right on target once again.
We can and must impeach those SCOTUS Justices who have taken a stand on the Gay Marriage question, and especially those who have advocated Gay Marriage.
Impeachment would just allow Obama to replace her with a younger model.
Obama should be removed as well.
You are right on target, such is the quality of the US Congress, and especially the US Senate.
“with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”
As if that mattered with the current occupants.
The states should tell the Supremes to pound sand and follow their own state laws.
Looking back its surprising how uncontroversial Ginsburgs appointment to the Supreme Court was. She was general counsel for the ACLU. But that didn’t cause any opposition or discussion during confirmation. If I recall correctly she was confirmed with only 3 dissenting votes.
Didn’t she just officiate at a gay marriage?
Why doesn’t that disqualify her?
"Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for his opposition to federal courts imposing same-sex “marriage” on states,"
While I admire Justice Moore for his stand against gay marriage, please bear the following hypothetical example in mind. Politically correct, pro-gay marriage interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections Clause by activist judges aside, even if Justice Moore supported gay marriage, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage as a right. So the states are free to make laws which prohibit gay marriage imo.
There is no right to government recognition of any grouping of persons. Every time government recognition of homosexual “marriage” has been put to a vote it has been rejected. It has been imposed by judicial fiat.
I respectfully disagree. As evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments for example, before the states ratified these amendments the states had the 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of race, sex, tax status and age.
Again, this is basically why the states are free to make laws to prohibit gay marriage. Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay “marriage,” the states are free to make laws which discriminate against such “marriage,” prohibiting it for example.
I don’t see where we disagree.
“Every time government recognition of homosexual “marriage” has been put to a vote it has been rejected.”
A common falsehood, but a falsehood nonetheless.
We have lost the last four statewide elections in a row. Maine, Maryland and Washington all voted outright to allow it, and Minnesota defeated a bill that would have amended their constitution to prohibit it. There hasn’t been a successful vote to ban gay marriage since May of 2012.
And if that doesn’t chill your blood, consider this: that 2012 vote was in North Carolina, and the ban passed by the same percentage that California’s first ban did in 2000. As far-loony-left as California has been, North Carolina is only twelve years behind them. And we see where California is today.
That’s why it galls me so when I see that falsehood repeated over and over again. We can’t pretend we’re still winning the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans, but must instead face unpleasant reality if we are to have any hope of changing it.
My mistake, you correct me.
Three states , every other judicially imposed.
I repeat with emphasis: there is no *right* to any grouping of persons being recognized by government. There is no *right* for any grouping of persons *for any purpose* being recognized by government.
I’d agree. But until we can get our fellow conservatives to give up their marriage tax goodies, that’s not going anywhere.
It’s a tough question sometimes, because the state will always be responsible for enforcing contracts, even marriage contracts, through the courts. But there’s a way of dialing down state involvement as much as possible.
Still, it’s important to admit where we are today. You say “three states” dismissively (although it’s actually four), and while technically true it ignores the fact that we’ve lost the nation in every reliable poll and even the our wins at the ballot box are cause for concern, as the percentages have been alarmingly trending in the wrong direction. We can no longer claim that the nation is against gay marriage, because as a whole they’re pretty clearly for it. And as I said before, admitting that is the first step before we can even hope to change it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.