Posted on 06/30/2015 10:57:21 AM PDT by reaganaut1
In late June of each year, the Supreme Court reveals many of its decisions in the cases argued that term. Inevitably, lots of Americans are upset over them. You may be one of those Americans, right now.
With all the furor over individual case facts and holdings, people are apt to miss a bigger picture – the judicial philosophies at work.
The clash of philosophies is the subject of an excellent recent book Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court. Author Damon Root, a senior editor at Reason, explores the great divide between those justices who believe that, with only rare exceptions, they should defer to the presumed wisdom of the politicians when laws are challenged, and those justices who believe they should skeptically examine such laws with no deference given.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Hello!
Read Mark Levin’s “Men in Black.”
Interesting read.
The author says that the same Court which gave us the 2nd Amendment Heller decision also gave us the gay marriage decision - for similar reasons of individual liberty.
Not sure I understand that but it gives insight into how the Court judges cases.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This is the process defined by law. There is a process defined for changing law.
In several States citizens have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws. Instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
Again, there is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. There is no infringement upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
The advocates of this novel definition have been treated with favoritism; they have not been made to comply with the laws. The laws have not been equally applied and in fact it is the advocates of the long and universally understood definition who have had their rights violated: the right to equal protection of the law.
Why must advocates of the long and universally understood definition be made to meet the high bar prescribed by law while those who advocate for a novel definition do not have to meet this same bar?
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State.
This novel definition has been imposed upon Society by small number of persons who abuse the power vested in their Office.
Unelected persons beyond control of the People imposing novelties upon Society is tyranny.
Judges are not Legislators. For judges to impose upon society a novel definition, to aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain Legislatively is tyrannical and beyond the authority of their Office. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored.
Then by that definition a right spelled out in the Bill of 4ights shall not be infringed....
Governors are probably the only hope of staving off this travesty, so there is no hope at all save the Second Coming.
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.