Matthews: Obama phoning the Prop 8 plaintiffs today was like Nixon phoning the astronauts

Via Greg Hengler. Alternate headline: “Even Tingles starting to compare Obama to Nixon.”

It’s a bit before my time, so remind me: Did Nixon run for president in ’68 opposing the Apollo program the way Obama opposed gay marriage to convince especially gullible social conservatives that he was some kind of middle-of-the-roader on “values”? Even now, I’m amazed at what a total pass he’s gotten on that. Marco Rubio may decide tomorrow that he’s “evolved” into a border hawk and therefore must vote against the Gang of Eight, but that won’t excuse him for having deceived the voters three years ago by posing as something he really wasn’t on this issue. He lied, on a subject that a lot of people care about, for his own personal political gain. He showed contempt for the voters. And so did Bambi, who as far as I can tell has paid not the slightest price for it and even now has Matthews fawning over the fact that he deigned to play approving National Father today.

This is one of the most grating things about the movement towards legalizing gay marriage, even for someone like me who supports it: Too many proponents seem too willing to grant each other rhetorical carte blanche after “evolving,” no matter how long they opposed SSM before and no matter how nasty they might get now with people who hold the same stance in opposition that they used to. If you go to bed on Monday opposed to gay marriage and wake up on Tuesday in favor, there’s no issue, it seems, with calling opponents “bigots” and “h8ers” on Tuesday afternoon. O was a fraud for years on this subject, for selfish reasons....

Regarding Prop. 8, the problem that I have with the elitist Supreme Court's claim that private citizens do not have standing to argue before the Court is the following. The Founding States had clarified in the Constitution that all cases in which a state is a party must originate in the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (emphasis added). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In fact, one Supreme Court case where a private citizen sued a state is Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court deciding against her argument that her citizenship automatically gave her the right to vote.

Another case where a private citizen sued a state is Chisholm v. Georgia.

In both cases, note that not only did the Court's decision lead to the Constitution being amended, 11A resulting from Chisolhm v. Georgia and 19A resulting from Minor v. Happersett, but 11A only prohibits citizens from suing states that they are not citizens of and foreign countries, Virginia Minor later suing her own state.

11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

So regardless that pro-gay activist justices want everybody to think that private citizens don't have the standing for their cases to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Supremes not only have a constitutional impetus to hear such cases if a state is a party, but also a history of deciding cases where private citizens sued a state.

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.