FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/14/2013 11:19:28 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas cracked a joke about Yale law students during oral arguments today. He’s famous for his restraint and reticence on the bench. It’s been nearly seven years since he asked any questions — and every last liberal on Twitter is making sure you know it.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Perhaps Justice Thomas would like to help secure a judicial review of O’s constitutional qualifications for office?
I mean, now that he’s apparently woken up from his 7 year Rip Van Winkle imitiation....
&#@$ the libs.
No, he said they were evading that issue, remember? /s
Justice Thomas explained long ago the reasons for his general rule not to ask questions from the bench.
And a lot of lawyers appreciate that. Most questions from the bench are grandstanding, and it makes oral argument difficult.
Well, he IS there to do a job for us....
(and another 4 years of tearing apart/down this country is nothing to look forward to...)
(I do understand the “grandstanding” problem with some justices’ questioning... have never figured out why they do it since they are in those robes for life and they aren’t getting paid any more to make themselves look stupid...)
yes indeed.... that IS precisely the biggest problem at the Supreme Court today...
(and, unless they’ve been threatened as many said when O went to meet with them in secret immediately upon assuming the throne in 2008..... unless that’s really true, there seems to be NO reason at ALL for them to avoid this, or any other major issue....)
well, Rome has been burning down for 4 years already, maybe just maybe, perhaps.. it may possible survive another 4? ?????
SCOTUS isn’t evading anything. In fact, they’ve agreed to hear two “gay marriage” cases in March. “Gay marriage” is about as controversial as it gets.
They already have three built in votes!
the courts have consistently avoided the constitutional eligibility for office issue, for starters
Talk is cheap — cough- Roberts. It is votes that count.
He who knows does not speak. - Lao Tsu
A lawyer for the state was making the case for the inmate’s appointed counsel, saying the woman was “more than qualified” and “very impressive.”
“She was graduate of Yale Law School, wasn’t she?” said Justice Antonin Scalia in apparent support, noting another member of the legal team went to Harvard.
The next words were hard to hear in the back-and-forth between the justices. But Thomas made a joke about the competence of Yale lawyers when compared to their Harvard colleagues, according to two witnesses.
If it's not a constitutional issue, that's exactly what they should do - evade and avoid it because it's a states' issue. The only time SCOTUS should grant certiorari on a non-Constitutional issue is to overturn a lower federal court ruling and remand to the state court.
Gay marriage is not a Constitutional issue, it's a states' issue.
Here’s hoping that Justice Thomas picks up the baton and runs like the wind with it.
Actually, it's a matter of the laws of nature and of nature's God, which precedes and supersedes both.
That's fine. In the meantime, SCOTUS needs to remand these kinds of cases to the states where they belong.
Depends on the merits of the individual case.
I would think that in many, if not most, instances you would be correct, but I can imagine quite a few circumstances in which such questions impinge on the legitimate constitutional role of the general government.
After all, the ultimate self-stated purpose of that Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity,” and it is absolutely impossible to fulfill such a purpose if the natural family has been destroyed.
The institution of marriage is the most fundamental God-given building block of our whole civilization. This is true governmentally, societally, and even economically.
It’s a matter of self-preservation.
As they rightfully say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It cannot be.
But, in any case, at no time should any officer of the general government, in any branch, recognize marriage as being anything except that which it is and has always been, the joining together of one man and one woman.
To do so is to have stepped into the realm of chaos, unreality, and lawlessness.
Let me remind you that the framers themselves made it clear that the Constitution did not pretend to delineate, to enumerate, every right.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Few matters deal with natural right more fundamentally than the question of natural marriage.
Just because the framers didn’t foresee that their offspring could depart so far from morality that such things would even be in question that doesn’t change the nature of basic wrong and right.
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.