Posted on 06/28/2015 7:42:52 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Eight hundred years and 11 days after the stamping of the Magna Carta, it’s been an appalling week at the Supreme Court for the Constitution and the rule of law. Today’s ruling is, in a sense, the Roe v. Wade of our generation. And I would think that even if I were gay and wanted to marry.
As I noted on Twitter yesterday, it is entirely possible to like the outcome of a court ruling (or legislation) while being appalled at the process by which it was achieved. For instance, one can be both pro-choice and still believe (as in fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg does) that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.
But too many people (including, apparently and sadly, many of the justices themselves, perhaps even including the chief justice) think that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to give them things they like, like subsidies for health care, or the right to marry someone of the same sex. They care only about the results, and are utterly indifferent to the process (as we saw with the way the PPACA was passed). They believe that the ends, if sufficiently desirable, always justify the means.
But the means matter.
If, as Chief Justice Roberts implied yesterday, ambiguous laws can be changed by judges per their divination of legislative intent, then there is no law except what the judges think it is. (I would note that in fact his reasoning was fundamentally flawed by his statement that it was Congress’s goal to simply “improve insurance markets.” I think their intent was to increase their control over our health providers, and ultimately lead us down a path to single payer. But neither of us knows.) This was not judicial activism — it was judicial nihilism.
Similarly, if the Fourteenth Amendment contains a hitherto unknown right to marry someone of the same sex, then it contains multitudes of rights that will be discovered in the future by more “enlightened” judges.
On Twitter, someone posted a picture of an inscription from the southeast portico of the Jefferson Memorial to justify the court’s ruling:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
But that is not an argument for a “living Constitution” that contains heretofore undiscovered “rights.” By “changes,” he meant that Constitutions must occasionally be amended, not reinterpreted.
This ruling wasn’t quite as bad as Roe, in that while a majority still support some restrictions on abortion, there has been a movement in public opinion on same-sex marriage in recent years. It was becoming legal in more and more states (though often, as was the case here, not by a popular vote, but by judicial fiat). Such a trend was probably inevitable, and young people are much more favorable to the idea than older ones (though they may change their minds as they age, as people do on many other issues). It was creating a problem in terms of “full faith and credit” between states that recognized it and those that did not.
But the Founders foresaw this sort of thing. That is why they put a provision into the founding document to deal with it. The proper way to address the issue, in terms of making SSM universal, was not to manufacture a new right from the Constitution, but rather to amend it. But that is something that hasn’t happened in a long time, because it is (rightly) difficult to do, and the Congress, the courts and the public have become too impatient, and prefer to sidestep it (which in fact has happened in, among other things, the federal War on Drugs, which somehow didn’t seem to require an amendment even though the prohibition of alcohol did).
The Constitution was meant to be the bedrock of laws, and the laws were to be enacted by the Congress, and signed by the president, not ignored or superseded by the president, or rewritten by the chief justice, to satisfy their own preferences, or those of others, even a majority. We are neither a tyranny of men, or that of a majority. As has often been told, when Benjamin Franklin came out of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Mr. Franklin, what have you given us?” His reply: “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
When we ignore and side step the Constitutional and legal process to achieve a desired end, the bedrock starts to turn to sand. When the laws are ignored by those who have sworn to uphold or review them, the rule of law itself disintegrates. When the public doesn’t care, or understand the role of the branches of government, but votes anyway for people who tell them they’ll just give them stuff they like, that is how republics are lost.
When the public doesn’t care, or understand the role of the branches of government, but votes anyway for people who tell them they’ll just give them stuff they like, that is how republics are lost.
To sum it up with an immortal, and remarkably wise, quote from the silly country music legend Kinky Friedman: "In the end, the crowd always chooses Barabbas."
Lord, have Mercy!
Based on zero’s negative remarks about the SCOTUS just before the ruling came out I actually thought the ruling had been leaked to him and it went against Obamacare. Apparently it was just that even obama didn’t think the SCOTUS would save this lousy law this time.
Yes. Gimme “free” stuff and nothing else matters. The fact that you must first rob my neighbor is not of interest to me. As long as it is “free” to me, who cares about anyone else.
/s
And anyway - how dare they flaunt the fact that they can afford a new car and I can’t?!! I’ll show ‘em!
Actually, it is arguably magnitudes worse. The newly discovered "right" to faux homosexual "marriage" is diametrically opposed to an enumerated right acknowledged in the first amendment.
For me, these two decisions were the final proof that the rule of law is dead, and with its demise the very foundation of this nation has been wiped away, as if it never were. What does it mean to be law abiding, when the laws themselves have no meaning.
As the human mind “becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times...”
Somehow, the gist of this idea has been co-opted by the left to justify all manner of regression as progress, moral bankruptcy as an evolutionary leap, mob rule as superior to rule of law, and barbarians at the gate (and breaching it) as a gift to what’s left of the country.
The Founders stated that this Government would only work for an honest and God fearing people.
We are neither any longer.
We now have a clear pathway for retaking the country within the next five years. It will not be easy, but frankly it is the last chance that I see in my lifetime.
First, in 2016 we MUST elect a CONSERVATIVE President such as Cruz or maybe Walker (I am keeping an open mind) AND the Republicans MUST hold onto the Senate.
As much as I would like to replace some RINOs in the Senate next year, because of the disproportionate number of Republicans up for election, it will be an uphill battle just to retain control. To retain control, we have to have as good of a year as we did 2010, when all those Senators that will be up for re-election were first elected.
President Cruz or President Walker simply cannot accomplish any of the things that must be done if Chuck Schumer is in control of the Senate. A Conservative President and a Democrat controlled Senate gets us nowhere.
This is my personal litmus test on whether or not keeping a RINO Senator in 2016 is better than replacing him with a Democrat. In the next few weeks or months, at least one and probably more of the following 80 year old Supreme Court Justices will announce their retirement so that Obama can fill their seat: Ginsburg, Breyer and/or Kennedy. Obama will fill their seats with young far left-wing liberals who will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
The Senate MUST Bork ANYONE that Obama picks to fill any of these seats. Do NOT argue that the nominees lacks experience or try to find some hidden defect buried deep in their backgrounds. Simply state (loudly and without hesitation) that the Supreme Court has shifted so far to the far left-wing that it has become a liberal oligarchy that is way outside the mainstream of America and that is disregarding the Constitution and democratic rights of the citizens. No more Obama appointments can be permitted.
The lamestream media and the Democrats will scream bloody murder. Who cares? Make it a campaign issue. Do you want Hillary to appoint far left wing judges who will disregard the will of the American people and write whatever laws that they want or do you want judges who will apply the Constitution and laws that are written? The media keeps telling us that Americans just love same sex marriage, but every single time a referendum has been held, a clear majority has voted against same sex marriage and every one of those votes has now been thrown out by a cable of five unelected dictators.
IMHO, any Republican Senators who join in filibustering Obama’s nominees should be permitted to keep their jobs for another term. Any Republican Senators who vote against a filibuster and in favor of Obama’s nominees are no better than Democrats and should be replaced.
If we can elect a CONSERVATIVE President and retain Republican control of the Senate in 2016, then the next step will be for the Senate to invoke the Reid Rule and abolish the filibuster entirely - for all appointments and legislation. Again, the lamestream media and the Democrats will scream bloody murder, but if we make it this far then they will be entirely irrelevant.
That will give the President and Congress one year to repeal every Obama executive order, every regulation adopted by every agency under Obama, and every law (including Obamacare) that was passed by the Democrats since 2006. They must work fast, so that the economy will have time to rebound before the 2018 elections.
In 2018, it will be the year for consolidating control of state governments and throwing out every RINO we can from Congress.
If we can accomplish these steps, then America will be saved. If not, then our Republic is over.
In retrospect, his remarks about “It should have never been in the courts to begin with” can be seen as simply gilding the lily. He might have been trying to stomp out any last flickering embers of opposite thought among the unwashed. “See, the Supremes agree with me!”
Here is the letter I sent on the subject.
Equal protection under the law now excludes tens of millions of Jewish, Christian and Muslim believers, who consider classical scholarship finds homosexual relationships separate people from God. The Old Testament, holy to “People of the Book”, speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God in a manner, which continuously addresses homosexuality. God is identified as masculine and all humans as feminine in relation to Him. After creating all things, He created the single institution of heterosexual marriage to point to the love relationship He desires with humanity. For them any subsequent reasoning from scriptures must derive from that basic understanding.
Focusing on first principles regarding marriage renders irrelevant contrary arguments of fairness and tolerance, and pecuniary arguments regarding taxes and social welfare. The Fourteenth Amendment was not the primary concern, because Constitutionality could have been maintained through the elegant expressions, and endless tomes legislators luxuriate in creating on issues from plastic bags to healthcare.
A popular civil trend now erases foundational Constitutional principle and injects a crippling abscess into spiritual faith. These believers reside outside boundaries guaranteeing religious freedom to become guilty of cultural prejudice, and next to confront logics defining their beliefs as criminal.
Same sex marriage tears the spinal cord out of the desert religions. What remains is a gooey substitute for spiritual faith which can be layered onto any secular philosophy. People will either buy into this new normal or be unable to benefit from this redefinition of the First Amendment.
Deserves repeating:
When the public doesn’t care, or understand the role of the branches of government, but votes anyway for people who tell them they’ll just give them stuff they like, that is how republics are lost.
It will and has ever been so.
Human nature.
Gd weeps.
Humanity, for the most part, is engaged in an all-out rejection of and war against God. Should it happen to be the case that He is indeed alive and well and aware of this, and if He is who the scriptures say he is, at some point they are in for one hell of a rude awakening. So be it! I look forward to the day. All hell is going to break loose one way or the other. This madness cannot continue without massively ugly consequences.
Hear, hear, Sen. Ron Johnson. And other Republican in the Senate, or House, who goes along to get along.
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.