Posted on 03/16/2017 12:26:54 PM PDT by drewh
[[I’m sorry, but this is far from Fraud by Court. When you don’t like a decision, work to get it reversed.]]
How does one go about that? Does it go to congress to rewrite the court case in such a way that the supreme court would have to take up the case again? I seriously doubt they will ever reverse their opinion (The SC I mean),
There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
People can “define and express their identity” however they want, legal recognition of a group of persons is not required for any person to “define and express their identity” or to excersize their rights of association or their conjugal rights. Marriage laws do not in any way inhibit or infringe upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. The advocates of this novel definition claim a right to legal recognition of their novel definition. There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
For the Supreme Court of the United States to use the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause to claim jurisdiction they must first adopt a radical and novel definition of “marriage”
Once the radical and novel definition of “marriage” has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States they may then make a legitimate claim of an equal protection issue, but not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” is there an equal protection issue.
Not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” may they have the fig leaf of jurisdiction thus paving the way for the subsequent illicit imposition of the radical and novel definition of “marriage”
This circular absurdity is nothing compared to the breathtaking arrogance of declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be.
By declaring that homosexuals may, in each and every State, marry, the Supreme Court of the United States have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution!
Not only have the made themselves legislators, they have erected a fourth Branch of Government. A fourth Branch of Government which substitutes its legislation for that of each and all of the States.
They have legislated. They have intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. They have acted entirely outside the Constitution.
To conceal and “justify” their compound criminality they clothe it with an invented “fundamental right” where there is no such right.
EVERY STEP of this goose march of homo-Fascism has been marked by gross impropriety in the courts, from the 9th’s decision in California’s marriage amendment nullification, where there was proven communication collusion between the court and the Justice Department; to Judge Vaughn Walker’s 3-time spanking for impropriety in his handling of the case by the Supreme Court as well as his open conflict of interest in the case; to the failure of two clearly biased justices on the USSC to recuse themselves from the case.
NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system. Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.
Mandatory? No. Only if the parties choose to adhere to the ruling. Yes, obvious, but we have seen under the Odumbo administration that you can actually “choose” not to obey the ruling on the law. The USSC opines (non-declaratory) on Congressional laws. The USSC can disagree, but that is IT! It is up to Congress to then recraft the law to abide the USSC ruling.
Whether its law or not,the states should refuse to comply with such an unholy,tyrannical abomination.
Why should a free citizen be obligated to give constitutional dignity to a court decision of unprecedented significance that itself cannot honestly be squared with the history and intent of the 14th Amendment?
Marbury? Please.
The Left puts honest people in bad places.
Obergefell is illicit. The outrageous behavior of Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan demands their impeachment.
Once upon a time, Dred Scott was the law of the land too.
Withdrew it?
Not arguing whether a court ruling on constitutionality is valid, just not that it creates a new “law”. I recall something about separation of powers. Courts rule on torts, criminal cases and “judicial oversight” per Marbury v Madison, but that is another issue.
When a court strikes down a law as being unconstitutional, it voids that law, it does not replace it with new language-am I wrong? I have bot seen court ruling added to my states statutes and I look quite often.n
As far as I am concerned, if it isn’t written in the statues, it isn’t a law. Case law is the bane of our liberty.
Post #7
“Whether its law or not,the states should refuse to comply with such an unholy,tyrannical abomination.”
Does the name Ft. Sumter ring a bell?
I am not arguing for the wisdom or correctness of the decision, just it’s national validity, and that is unassailable.
Good question.
It does whatever the court says it does. It may uphold a law, declare it unconstitutional, modify it in whole or part, declare only certain parts unconstitutional, order Eggs Benedict for two, etc,
Exactly.... and it was reversed by the will of the people, though their duly elected representatives.
They use the Full Faith and Credit Clause when it suits them. For DOMA, no. For my concealed carry permit, no.
Gay marriage? Yes. Immunity for illegal aliens? Yes.
I’m surprised the States haven’t tried to pass a bill essentially nullifying the worst parts of Obamacare by passing their own laws on the matter, and allowing their citizens to opt out of buying heath insurance under their own constitution, citing the 9th and 10th Amendments. Mandating HC isn’t a right reserved in the BOR, and you can only make the 14th’s penumbras and emanations extend so far.
Good question. First, get the judges who were on your side on the decision. Ask them, what were the other sides most telling arguments. Often courts will draw a road map in a decision as to how to fix the law.
Then find a way around the problematic parts. Remember, for each element of a public debate process, there is the other side who believes passionately that they are right. There is often middle ground. Often what they “need” may have little importance to what you want/need, and you could care less about what is important to them. When that happens, great, we all win.
Gay marriage is a classic example. Great issue; horrible tactics on our side. Had we been willing to create a category of relationship where gay couples would have received the same tax advantages as straight couples, jint property, etc, or something that was a huge issue for them, the ability for a “life partner” to make legally binding decisions such as pulling the plug on a terminally ill spouse, we probably could have pushed the actual marriage issue off for 20 years, possibly forever.
Remember, you do make peace with your enemies, not your friends!
Also, elect enough reps to pass a CA... and good luck on that.
“NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system. Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.”
Although I agree with you personally on the ISSUE of gay marriage, it is settled law.
“NO ONE is obligated to live under the dictates arrive at under such a corruption-laden system.” Correct. You may work within the law to change the system.... or leave. Your choice. There is no door #3.
“Maybe you are content to do so, but no patriot is. We launched a revolution over much less.”
Correct. If you do so, you may die very bravely.... and equally quickly.
“At some point the game can’t continue.”
Totally correct.
Personally, my personal thoughts are not to far from shooting them all, putting Tony Soprano in charge, and holding all legislative meetings at The Badda-Bing!
You are making the classic 10th Amendment argument.
With one more judge on SCOTUS, especially one replacing Mrs. Ginsberg, it might finally fly.
In the real world however, there are no simple answers. Life, and 225 years, have forced changes in the foundational concepts that would need to be addressed.
Live would become VERY complex.
Enjoy your chains.
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.