Posted on 06/28/2015 7:51:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In controversial cases, is the role of jurist to inflame controversy, or quell it?
In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case which found race-based marriage bans unconstitutional, Chief Justice Earl Warren built a 9-0 consensus—just as he’d done years earlier in Brown vs. Board of Education. He knew that a country divided by race ought to be united, if possible, by a Supreme Court mindful of fundamental values—even if the Court was, as the constitution requires, overturning the will of the majority.
The four dissents in the landmark case on same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges, one by each of the conservative justices on today’s Supreme Court, take a very different view. With invective and hyperbole, they pour fuel on the fire of the controversy over same-sex marriage. Rather than merely state their views and disagreements, they use heated language to accuse the five-person majority of imperialism, a “putsch,” and worse.
Thus, the unprecedented calls of elected officials for open revolt against the Supreme Court—a shocking display of treason—are now accompanied by calls from within the Court itself that Obergefell is illegitimate, and the Supreme Court itself no longer worthy of full respect.
Ironically, in alleging a new low for the Court, these four justices have brought one into being. Justice Scalia has, as usual, grabbed the spotlight with juvenile taunting usually reserved for the playground. But in fact, all four opinions are shocking.
Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Scalia and Thomas) makes a solid, and unsurprising, substantive case. There is, after all, no explicit right to marriage (for gays or anyone else) in the Constitution; it is, rather, a fundamental right inferred into the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection. Thus, one might expect a judicial conservative like Roberts to be suspicious of expanding it,
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Opposition to what?
Now, move along, nothing to see here.
State Religion created, no big deal, move along, nothing to see here.
How does "crony capitalism" differ from old fashioned bribery, other than, perhaps a more sophisticated means of "passing the envelope"?
IOW, Hillary's "cattle futures" were actually a bribe from Tyson. Since "the envelope" was passed through the Futures Market, was this Crony Capitalism, Investment Iniquity or just a slick form of plain old bribery?
The dissenters said pretty much what Lincoln said about the Dred Scott decision.
He also has no clue about what constitutes treason under the Constitution. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest that disagreeing or even refusing to obey a Supreme Court decision should be considered treason.
Obviously, some of the things one might do in opposition could in theory be treasonous.
Not quite. I think there never was a decision that literally reversed Dred Scott. The Civil War and the post-war amendments did that.
Brown sort-of reversed Plessy v. Ferguson, but only sort-of. In Brown, the Court carefully decided on the basis of “psychology” and “social science,” NOT on the basis of the Constitution. Thus maximizing, for that moment and for the future, the Court’s LEGISLATIVE POWER. They have done that many times.
My favorite is: “...I would hide my head in a bag.”
To the voting, courts would eventually prohibit, but Obama’s stand, 2-3 months before the election, would inspire lots of illegal voting.
On the pardons, no one could. The power of the Presidential pardon is legally absolute.
It is to laugh, if only so one does not cry.
Read the whole thing - the author, Jay Michaelson, is a leftist pig using slander and childish pseudologic (not to mention butchering the law) to directly practice the very so-called “stochastic terrorism” (WTF?) of which he accuses the dissenting Justices.
Good Lord these media pukes are nasty.
I think the correct word is Rebellion!
“Our Republic is a joke.”
Only if we do not do anything to remedy the present situation. There are remedies at our disposal, are we willing to act on those remedies? No matter what the personal cost?
Our forefathers made that kind of a choice. Are we willing to make the same choice to restore/preserve what they gave us?
What do you expect from someone whose base motive is to steal what is good and warp it?
Already Ted Cruz has been talking about Supreme Court retention amendment, and others about marriage amendment.
Not quite accurate.
Although no specific court has ever reversed itself, there have been a handful of decisions that have been reversed by subsequent courts.
Absolutely shocking! Heated language is treasonous. And don't we all know, treason is punishable by death. Wait! Did Daily Beast just issue an edict of death on 4 SC justices? Isn't that treasonous? Oh, wait. I see my error. Heated language is only treasonous when it's spoken in opposition to a liberal cause.
I can’t bring myself to fly the flag anymore. It doesn’t represent what it once did. This country has died. I’m just going to go and vent with my friends around a campfire this fourth.
There are people on the subPreme court who are due to be impeached fro violating their oath to the Constitution, OUR Constitution.
And some people wonder why I call DC the District of Criminals.
Bring it, Jay. Bring it.
I dare you.
L
See the definition here, dated 26 January 2011, a couple of weeks after Jared Loughner killed six and injured 13:
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.... It goes downhill from there.
This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.
This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others
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.