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.
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.