Treason from Deck to Deck, Keel to PooP Deck... on the Ship of State..
that's not even counting the sedition and espionage..
CURE!..
CWII
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 ...
Off with their heads!
Treason has been committed by those who foisted their personal opinions upon the U.S. They have given aid and comfort to the enemy: those who will not abide by the law.
There is no “law of the land” there is only a Judicial Putsch.
If it is necessary to suggest that the sun rose this morning.
Loving v. Virginia didn’t challenge the institution of marriage in any way, it removed limitations on heterosexual marriage that were rather absurd. The current case redefined the meaning of marriage so as to make it meaningless.
it is not treason to ask Congress to use its constitutional powers to limit the purview of the courts
(Sad) Bottom line; the issue is settled law. The Supreme Court sometimes reverses lower courts. It does not reverse itself.
Even worse, Obama thinks he is on a roll.
His next two (highly illegal/improper) Executive Actions may be to try to give voting rights to everyone in the US who (supposedly) pays taxes, etc;, i.e. all the illegal (democrat-voting) immigrants. Citizenship would not matter. They would not have to establish IRS compliance either. The fact that they paid sales tax when they bought their latest 6-pack of Corona would be enough for the Dems.
Next, free by Presidential pardon, all the (Black) drug dealers who pleaded down their serious felony drug dealing charges to drug possession misdemeanors, because the “system is so unfair to poor minor amount drug users.”
It’s coming.
Don’t you love how the Left is suddenly in love with the concept of Treason?
Seems like only yesterday that “ dissent is the highest form of patriotism”...
I thought virginia was for lovers, not loving.
Sorry. Had to go there.
Amend 14 section three may hold the remedy for our dilemma.
Ban those going against the oath and constitution forever
that's not even counting the sedition and espionage..
CURE!..CWII
SCOTUS isn’t the only one that has trouble with words. Civil disobedience is not treason.
The court has reversed itself, as it did with Lawrence v. TX in the 1990s.
What is often overlooked was Loving found racial standards to be so biased as to be unenforceable. A person of Arab lineage would be stopped from marrying a Persian? A Greek blocked from marrying Irish?
With sex it’s pretty binary with a few exceptions.
Brown reversed Plessy v. Ferguson.
Thanks for the correction.
Or Rev III.
“And I will boycott the family 4th of July party, held at my liberal sister’s place.”
_____________________________________________________
What’s the point of celebrating, anyway?
It seems like every 4th of July we have fewer liberties, rights, and freedoms than the previous “Independence” day.
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.