Roberts a homo? Now, whatever would make you say that?!?
Posted on 11/18/2014 11:33:30 AM PST by xzins
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas called out his fellow justices this week, expressing formal disappointment that the Court refused to hear several gay "marriage" cases.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear marriage appeals from Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In his statement, which was in reaction to the Court's decision to not hear an Arizona immigration amendment, Clarence -- who famously goes years between asking questions from the bench -- said that the Court should have heard the marriage cases.
"We have recognized a strong presumption in favor of granting writs of certiorari to review decisions of lower courts holding federal statutes unconstitutional," wrote Thomas. "States deserve no less consideration. ... Indeed, we often review decisions striking down state laws, even in the absence of a disagreement among lower courts."
"But for reasons that escape me, we have not done so with any consistency, especially in recent months," said Thomas, who also said that he also believed the Arizona case should have been heard.
"At the very least, we owe the people of Arizona the respect of our review before we let stand a decision facially invalidating a state constitution," described Thomas. "I hope my prediction about whether that petition will be granted proves wrong. Our recent practice, however, gives me little reason to be optimistic."
Thomas' statement comes after months of promotion of same-sex "marriage's" constitutionality by liberal justice Ruth Ginsburg, who presided over a same-sex ceremony earlier this year. Thomas was joined by fellow conservative Antonin Scalia in his critique.
Exactly right.
When the Scotus strikes down a provision of a State Constitution put in place by a vote of the people, they owe it more than a passing glance, and that’s all nodding at a lower federal court is.
I wonder which USSC Justices the NSA has dirt on.
How many justices does it take to add a case to the docket?
Or is it up to the chief?
Could Roberts be a closet homo or homo sympathizer?
It was Sotomayor’s decision, iirc, but the news said she and 5 more agreed. That doesn’t sound good for natural marriage if it gets up to these people, although 2 of the 6 could have had procedural issues.
4 justices are required to grant cert.
And yep, I suspect Roberts is going to be more concerned with his precious “legacy” than he will actual, you know, Constitutional law. He’ll side with the sodomy-lovers, the media will crow about a “landmark” 6-3 ruling, and we’ll be forced to take the religious freedom fight to the states.
I’m a pessimist about earth, but know that this doesn’t end here.
I wish the Americans would just walk out of DC, come back to American, and cut the commies off.
Four.
So Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts could bring the gay marriage cases up. My theory is that they are not voting to hear the cases because they believe Kennedy will side with the four liberals to create a 5-4 majority to impose gay marriage on the whole country.
The four liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor) could also bring the cases up, but they have not done so either-- perhaps they are not confident of getting Kennedy's vote, or maybe they want gay marriage to spread through lower court decisions until the issue is no longer so controversial.
Roberts. They have dirt on Roberts.
That makes sense.
Thanks.
Thanks.
>> I’m a pessimist about earth, but know that this doesn’t end here.
Amen
Roberts a homo? Now, whatever would make you say that?!?
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.