Posted on 09/30/2015 11:35:42 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Exactly - The Supreme Court can be wrong.
1) Dred Scott v. Sandford:
In his majority opinion Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote:
“[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.”
This was only the second time (to that date) that the Supreme Court had ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional (the Missouri Compromise of 1820), the first being the case Marbury v. Madison wherein the court ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 invalid (or at least a part of it). Many constitutional scholars consider this 7-2 decision the worst in US history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
2) Plessy v. Ferguson:
In this case (1896) the Supreme Court in a 7-1 vote gave explicit constitutional sanction to the idea of the “separate but equal” doctrine. The case was from Louisiana. This was “settled law” until overruled by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954! In a stinging dissent Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote:
[I]n view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved.
Of course Justice Harlan was vindicated. Though outnumbered his opinion eventually became law. I used to cite his dissent in my classes as one of the greatest ever written. That dissent always brings the words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes to mind “… A dissent in a court of last resort, is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
3) Korematsu v. United States:
In this case the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold Executive Order 9066 which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps (a nice way of saying concentration camps) during the Second World War regardless of citizenship! Justice Jackson was one of the three justices to dissent. Justice Jackson was also one on my heroes but we’ll save him for a later day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
Again, in each case these decisions were “settled law.” And in each case the majority decisions were inimical to our ideas of liberty. In conclusion please pay heed to the words of Learned Hand who served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Hand has been quoted more often by legal scholars and by the Supreme Court of the United States than any other lower-court judge.)
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”
Congress can take jurisdiction over marriage away from the Federal courts without a Constitutional amendment. It's one of those Tenth Amendment thingies.
Yeah. They can also either ignore their immoral, unconstitutional opinions, and/or impeach the usurpers.
US Constitution. Article 3, Section 2:
“...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
The statutory threshold in Congress is lower than for either an amendment or impeachment.
That’s the line.
True. But the threshold for simply ignoring their immoral, unconstitutional opinions as the legal nullities that they in fact are, is as low as it can go.
I hear ya.
The local authorities will then face a horde of expensive lawsuits in Federal court that they cannot afford. The ante will be upped.
You’re right, of course, if we don’t also get some high-level officials who understand and are committed to the obligations of their oath, and if we don’t have a huge mass of citizens prepared to step up and support those individuals who are being targeted and attacked.
That kind of open ended financial commitment is not exactly "as low as you can go" when it comes to thresholds sustaining marriage. At this point, the statutory strategy seems the best bet to me. The "Kim Davis" political element of local action does support that initiative, in that it exposes the tyrannical aspects of the gay agenda.
As an aside, I just wish the Family Research Council had a clue about this 'parent one and parent two' gambit. So far, they've missed the point about it that tie into this issue directly.
It doesn’t usually cost any money to simply do your duty and keep your oath.
However, if it does, that just the price of liberty.
If our forefathers could pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and back it up with their actions, so can we.
FRC is pretty clueless about a lot of things.
Defending a lawsuit costs a local government big money that doesn't go into basic services. Even State and Federal agencies are afraid of the cost. You just waive your hand.
However, if it does, that just the price of liberty.
So you preference is stupid tactics akin to recommending charging with a banzai sword against a line of automatic weapons. I prefer winning to fruitless battles. Sounds like you're not paying for them.
If our forefathers could pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and back it up with their actions, so can we.
After which they didn't just walk up to the British magistrate and hand him a rope. Speak for yourself. I already did.
I just called them and told them about the need to preserve gender identified statistics.
You misunderstand. I believe you fight on every front you can. Including the one you suggested.
But if you’re afraid to get sued, or that you might have to spend some money to defend liberty and the obligations of your oath, you’re not going to get very far.
Good job.
Maybe they’ll listen for once.
If we'd done that in WWII, we'd have lost. There was a difference between Patton and Montgomery in both blood, treasure, and success.
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.