Skip to comments.Scalia: 'High-Handed' Kennedy Has Declared Us 'Enemies of the Human Race'
Posted on 06/26/2013 9:53:29 AM PDT by Biggirl
Dissenting from this morning's opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia as expected holds nothing back. In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
But, there are some things, for the sake of the country, and liberty, and the future generations...even your own, not to mention for the sake of your eternal soul, that are worth standing up for, whatever the cost.
As it is, these SCOTUS rulings are just edging us further and further down a path that will ultimately lead to the patriotic, Constitutional, God-fearing, and loyal American citizenry taking the same path our founders took, and being supported in that effort by the Hand of the same Almighty Creator who supported those founders through their travail.
God grant we are up to the task, and that (as it states in II Chrom 7:14) we will turn to Him, repent, and humble ourselves so that He can heal our land.
The several branches are curiously synchronized.
Enemies of the human race. Because we refuse to eat a chode as the gaystapo demand.
There is no civility among liberals. They are naked Communists. No tolerance for dissent. No tolerance for the will of the people or the vote or the outcome of elections.
“The SCOTUS is being reduced to a bar room brawl” (Limbaugh). Bring it on!
This Dennison is a win for wedding planners and divorce lawyers.
This decision is a win for wedding planners and divorce lawyers.
That is why this country could very well break apart, along red states/blue states.
I repeat: the several branches are curiously synchronized.
Amen and Amen.
That has a really nice ring to it. So when you start rounding these enemies up for extermination, it almost seems like the right thing to do!
I no longer consider SCOTUS a legitimate government entity - they have joined our dreadful White House as enemies of the American people. SCOTUS has no legitimate or moral authority at all, just the power to attempt to compel compliance in some situations. We all know where it leads when the organs of government lose their legitimacy; I just hope the thugs will back off before it reaches that point.
June 26, 2013
Scalia’s DOMA Dissent
My simple rule of the thumb....if you find yoursefl on the opposing side of Scalia, rethink your position.
I wonder how many “conservatives” celebrating this decision were cheering on John Roberts yesterday in the Voting Rights Act case. Funny how quickly people can go from that to the Ginsburg school of “things I don’t like are un-constitutional” school of jurisprudence.
I’m not going to get into the standing issue which is technical, though Scalia rips the majority apart there too. Here’s some of what he said about the majority’s decision on the merits (pdf).
There are many remarkable things about the majoritys merits holding. The first is how rootless and shifting its justifications are. For example, the opinion starts with seven full pages about the traditional power of States to define domestic relationsinitially fooling many readers, I am sure, into thinking that this is a federalism opinion. But we are eventually told that it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution, and that [t]he States power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism be-cause the States decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. Ante, at 18. But no one questions the power of the States to define marriage (with the concomitant conferral of dignity and status), so what is the point of devoting seven pages to describing how long and well established that power is?
The majority opinion need not get into the strict-vs.- rational-basis scrutiny question, and need not justify its holding under either, because it says that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, ante, at 25; that it violates basic due process principles, ante, at 20; and that it inflicts an injury and indignity of a kind that denies an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, ante, at 19. The majority never utters the dread words substantive due process, perhaps sensing the disrepute into which that doctrine has fallen, but that is what those statements mean. Yet
the opinion does not argue that same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720721 (1997), a claim that would of course be quite absurd. So would the further suggestion (also necessary, under our substantive-due-process precedents) that a world in which DOMA exists is one bereft of ordered liberty. Id., at 721
(quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937)). Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation
cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Courts nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-dueprocess grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a bare . . . desire to harm couples in same-sex marriages. Ante, at 20. It is this proposition with which I will therefore engage.
We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better.
“calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”
I would say rather that those promoting unnatural unions of which offspring can not naturally occur are the real enemies of the human race!
Political activists for Obama. No protection or even a defense for all of the millions of citizens who support traditional marriage that has been the foundation of human existence. They have now discriminated against that group. The radicals only advance when they have the activists’ fight scenario to carry their causes as we do see now on the high court. This was a wrong decision. No protection or defense for millions of Americans. There should be a start of impeachment hearings for this full shown ruling by abuse by these activists judges..in the real world where the constitution does matter.
And deep inside, they know it. And that is what really gets under their skin and drives them to the lengths...and madness...that they resort to.
I see more and more a growing angry backlash against the heavy hand of the communists. It is coming.
I no longer consider this the United States of America, but a fallen, reprobate shell of what was once the most blessed nation to have ever graced the earth.
The second one says it all. The only thing missing is the guy who wants to marry his great dane.
“God grant we are up to the task, and that (as it states in II Chrom 7:14) we will turn to Him, repent, and humble ourselves so that He can heal our land.”
Yes, may we, the body of Christ, be bold and courageous and proclaim forgiveness of sin in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, as lives are changed one by one by the Spirit’s sanctifying work.
Last night in Texas a Democrat used Planned Parenthood lies and hysteria to stall the vote on an abortion bill. She fell short of midnight with her filibuster but anarchist activists shouted and created disorder to prevent the vote from taking place.
There is no civility among Democrats anymore. The system is broken. No debate. No upholding the law (California’s governor DID NOT UPHOLD THE LAW, yet the law was kicked back to the California Supremes because no one else had “standing” to challenge the court decision). Obama refuses to uphold DOMA. Obama refuses to enforce immigration law and punishes states that would dare to, claiming it is the Federal government’s job.
There’s no law, no law anymore. It’s a lie to pretend it still exists. We are living in a state of anarchy. IRS agents got $70million in bonuses after sending $46million in refund checks to 20,000 illegal immigrants all residing at the same address. Obama’s first Sec. of the Treasury was a known tax cheat. Warren Buffett complains of tax rates being too low when he already has refused to pay the taxes he already owes...
Most of whom were from out-of-state.
The goal is to smash the patriarchy. Smash monogamy. Destroy the institution of marriage.
Feminists have wanted it. Communists have wanted it. Bill Ayers wanted it (it is mentioned in his 9-11-2001 NY Times piece).
Been the agenda for over 40 years.
“but how does this hurt YOUR marriage?”
Stalinists lie. Always.
Public opinion cannot change this fast in a free society, so:
Either public opinion has not really changed, or:
This is no longer a free society.
Always really liked Nino.
Yes, first in Wisconsin, now in Texas. There will be blood.
how soon? I need to cross over that border line before it happens. I never thought it possible, but at this point, I am not sure America as we know it survives intact as one.
The only thing that will save this nation is God.
Traditional marriage supporters are now being discriminated by the high freaking court of all places. They are No court to me. Impeachment for these activists.
One of those judges who upheld Obamacare had formerly been an advocate for it (before she was seated on the bench).
Corruption in the Supreme Court.
“We are living in a state of anarchy.”
Not yet. For now it’s more like oligarchical despotism.
>> The goal is to smash the patriarchy. Smash monogamy. Destroy the institution of marriage.
And the Progressives use homosexual ‘marriage’ law to force the citizens into servicing and supporting homosexual behavior.
DWI laws are not enforced when the stopped driver is suspected of being an illegal immigrant.
There are plenty of examples of the refusal to enforce existing laws.
And when liberals willingly violate the law (in coordinated riots, for example), they are later released without charge.
Keep a close eye on the gun sales, people are getting nervous.
Which WILL create the conditions of a future revolt.
them ore im tryign to udnerstand htis them ore confusing it’s getting-
Basically the surpeme court refuises to hear prop 8 stating basically that ‘the right parties are not here to defend the the case’ meanign hte gov, auttourney gen, and officer of records, all three who were neamed i nthe case, were not there because htey refused to go to court to defend prop 8 (accordign the Shannon Breem’s summary of the ruling)
What’s goign on? were thsoe three the oens that broguht up prop 8 in the first place, and now have backed off and won’t defend it? or where they the htree that were opposed to prop 8 and they refuse to go to court ot defend the state’s position that prop 8 is not legal? I thought they were opposed to the prop 8? Shannon made it soudn liek they were refusign to SUPPORT/DEFEND prop 8 and so the supreme court htrew out the case
When I first heard the issue, it soudned to me like basically, 1: the peopel voted bannign gay marriage, 2: the state overruled the people BUT refused to provide any defense for their rule in an appeals court, nor i nthe supreme court, and so neither higher court could legally hear the case because the astate refused to defend their ruling- so the peopel were just crap out of luck
I thought hmmm- I wonder if that’s how it works in real life- a criminal say robs a bank, refuses to show up to court to defend hismelf, and so the court can’t pass judgement on him because he’s not there- because that sounds exactly liek what the supreme court just said “Nope- can’t hear the case because the state officials refuse to be present- so back down to the district court ruling- too bad so sad for the peopel who votede for prop 8”
Someoen please help clarify- I think Shannon Breem is confusing hte issue by insinuating it was the state who didn’t show up IN DEFENSE OF prop 8- but my undertanding was that hte state was OPPOSED TO prop 8?
Is ‘enemies of the human race’ actually in the majority decision? Or is it a comment made by one of the majority members during conference?
What a mess.
Francisco’s Rule: “Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
Revolt is coming.
Pray for its spiritual conversion.
There’s nothing I’d like better than seceding from the degenerate, Obama-voting “fag marriage” blue states.
I can’t find the words to properly express my gratitude to Justice Scalia for this dissent.