Posted on 06/27/2015 4:52:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal slammed the Supreme Court on Friday after its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage.
“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” the 2016 presidential candidate said in a statement.
“If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court,” Jindal added.
The 5-4 ruling, which forces all states to recognize same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, will fundamentally transform the institution of marriage, he later said.
“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he added.
Jindal also echoed Franklin Graham warning today that the persecution of Christians is coming with this ruling.
“Hillary Clinton and the Left will now mount an all-out assault on religious freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment,” he said.
“Regardless of your views on marriage, all freedom-loving people must pledge to respect our first amendment rights,” he added.
Chief Justice John Roberts was particularly concerned with the religious freedom aspect of the ruling as well.
“Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion, “and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.”
Christians “better be ready,” Graham warned.
“Slash budgets to the bone. Shut down government if need be”.
Post of the day.
The Supreme Court and all other feral courts need to be reformed. The idea of an independent judiciary is a myth, and that the judicial branch actively legislates from the bench a reality. All federal judges should be elected for finite terms, just like the legislative branch whose functions they are usurping.
Indeed! From a previous post but still as relevant as ever:
Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny
“A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
(Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)
“The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)
“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)
“The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)
“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)
“One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825)
“It was just hyperbole. “If you want to save some money, let’s get rid of the court.”
Hyperbole that displays a wretched understanding of the Constitution. Or has he never read Article III? “
That is a Governor of a state and he has a clear understanding of the US Constitution and is interested in preserving states’ rights.
Have you read Article V?
He knows the magic number is 38.
With 38 states in unison, the Congress can be disbanded, the President removed and, oh yes, the Supreme court gotten rid of.
Indeed we need only part timers under term limits.
With all due respect, we should watch where we are going by inertia and as necessary change our course.
The idea that the government ever COULD say what marriage was led to it being a tempting target for this putsch. It is saner, IMHO, to call this for the exercise in farce it is.
Some are talking of both together
I have been doing genealogy a lot this summer. My ancestors in many cases, fled religious persecution. It could happen again. I’m going to a seminar this summer on the international aspects of religious liberty. Should be interesting.
Sometimes the Lord arranges for simply fleeing persecution.
Sometimes He sets up face to face encounters between Christians and persecutors. It is there that the more interesting things (if painful) occur.
After the Republican Party destroys its deep bench in a futile attempt to avoid the nomination of Jeb Bush, Governor Abbott may be the best one left four years from now.
I agree with TalBlack - within a year. I honestly expect to see a challenge to the churches very shortly.
For one thing, the largely non-existent protections for religious objectors of which Kennedy rather airily spoke have yet to be legally enacted, and I think that the gays are going to use this moment to strike.
“It’s possible that 4 supremes can retire in the next 8 years. With a Republican president and republican congress, it would be possible to put on justices who can reverse what the current court has done.”
That’s a good thought, and let’s hope it comes true. But what worries me is whether a president could get a strict constructionist confirmed with the likes of Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski.
Abolish it!
Wasn’t it Justice Thurgood Marshall who said that if an unconstitutional law stayed on the books long enough, it automatically became constitutional?
...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...
The institution empowers corrupt egomaniacal LAWYERS with life tenure! The institution is not fine and it has been a ticking time bomb throughout it's existence.
Well, I do like a lot about Jindal as a representative, but he just showed he is unfit to be President. One does not dismantle 1/3 of the Three Branches because of one terrible decision. They’ve had many in the past. He should drop out of the race next week.
The constitution says that the SCOTUS must exist. However, it was the SCOTUS itself that increased the power of both itself and the presidency with the Marbury v. Madison (1810) decision.
With just one decision, the SCOTUS declared that it had the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws. And indirectly, because the president refused to comply with the decision, while the presidency can be made to *not* carry out what the president wants to do, he cannot be forced to act against its wishes by the SCOTUS (with a Writ of Mandamus).
However, this being said, congress has the *sole* authority over the organization and jurisdiction of all other federal courts.
So congress could reorganize the judiciary to retire hundreds of liberal and leftist federal judges. It wouldn’t need to fire them, just not give them courts to practice in, creating different courts with different judges.
He has his right to his opinion, like anyone else, doesn’t he?
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.