Clarence Thomas: 'Another Example of This Court’s Increasingly Cavalier Attitude Toward the States'

CNS ^ | February 9, 2015 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[xzins]

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas excoriated his fellow justices for refusing to temporarily stop enforcement of a federal district judge's ruling that overturned the marriage laws of the state of Alabama and ordered Alabama to recognize as legal "marriages" unions between two people of the same sex.

On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ruled that Alabama laws limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the judge's decision from going into effect until the Supreme Court itself issued its ruling on same-sex marriage--which the court will do this term.

The Supreme Court refused to stay the lower court ruling--with Justice Thomas and Scalia dissenting.

In his dissent from the court's refusal to grant the stay, Justice Thomas rhetorically smacked his colleagues for disregarding it own standard practices and the deference due to state governments and voters.

"This acquiescence [in the lower court ruling] may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question [of same-sex marriage]," wrote Thomas.

"This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities," he said. "And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is. Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds.

"It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them," wrote Thomas. "In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months."

[Blue Collar Christian]

” The “Individual States” are NOW fighting back for their sovereignty. This gives me faith.”

Yes, there is hope in that. The enemy is also concentrating on the states to advance the gun control and the homosexual agendas.

[stylin_geek]

By denying the stay, the court creates a fait accompli, which will then allow the court to rule they cannot overturn that which has already taken place.

The court, through their inaction, is setting up an ex post facto Trojan Horse.

My .02

[HLPhat]

>>a large majority of state legislatures are in the hands of Republicans.

Hands?

RINOs don’t have the calloused hands for the craftsmanship of America’s founders - they just have lying mouths derived from a craft of another kind.

These manipulative self-serving dipshytes have repeatedly demonstrated that fact and they can all go to Hell as Nature imposes its consequence upon the self-worshiping culture that created and climbed into its own state-established jackwagon.

Got Romans 1:25+ ?

As for me and my family - we will serve the Creator.

[Wallace T.]

The only amendments worth considering are structural

Limiting the jurisdiction of Federal courts is a structural change, one which is long overdue. Since the days of the Warren Court, the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have acted as a super-legislature. Arguably, judicial activism can be traced to John Marshall, but only in the last 60 years have the Federal courts overridden state laws on the basis of extending the Fourteenth Amendment far beyond its original intent, which was to protect newly freed black citizens from legal discrimination and maltreatment in the former Confederate states.

[Yaelle]

Did Roberts become another Souter?
Roberts is worthless. Someone has something on him.

---

Roberts has two beautiful children. Both blonde Europeans, adopted in South America. That is against the law. You can only adopt from any country children of that country.

[HLPhat]

>>Maybe a States Article V?

Who will enforce it?

Observe the fact that the statute of limitations has just about run out on any possibility of prosecuting the miscreants who pumped up a balloon filled with several HUNDRED TRILLION dollars in derivative A$$paper.

How many criminal prosecutions have there been?

Article V in this UNENFORCED context is nothing but theater.

Might as well rewrite Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy too while we're at it.

Same Ol Shyte. Let Chris Kyle's handlers swim in it at the bottom of their Short-sold barrel.

[Yaelle]

Yes. It doesn’t matter what the law is. If it isn’t enumerated in the constitution, it belongs to the states.

I feel gay marriage is toothpaste out of the tube, in general, so I am not overly bothered by the issue; I’ve made my peace with it. However, I am EXTREMELY UPSET to see our constitution trashed by the jerks in robes who are there to do nothing else but uphold it.

[HLPhat]

>>Roberts has two beautiful children.
>>Both blonde Europeans, adopted in South America.

http://www.google.com/search?q=justice+roberts+homosexual

To Hell with the social engineering faggots and the jackwagon they rode in on.

Nature will rule and flush the cultural toilet as it always has.

Romans 1:25+

[Jacquerie]

Courts run wild because there isn't a senate of the states to limit them. Only the states themselves are capable of effectively enforcing the 10th Amendment.

Our pre and post 17th Amendment history is proof, for the judiciary was well kept within its constitutional box before the 17A.

Obama and his administrators stomp on the states because they needn't fear impeachment. Obama doesn't fear impeachment because the House will not bother going through the mess when the senate is sure to not convict. A senate of the states would put the fear of impeachment back into play.

Return to the framer's structure of government is our only hope.

[Lumper20]

True. Good post. I wish the kids in school were getting the truth plus scripture.

[Lurking Libertarian]

That is against the law. You can only adopt from any country children of that country.

Against what law?

[HLPhat]

>>One of the first they change will be the 2nd amendment.

Yep. It’s the last worker bees with stingers who toss the worthless drones out of a dying hive.

[Yaelle]

Omg. That photo sets my gaydar to Man The Lifeboats. And they say he lived with a man at his law firm who was assumed to be his partner. I did not know Roberts was gay, but that photo!!!!!!

Anyway, if he came out as gay, that would not be a big deal. That isn’t what he’s being blackmailed over. ITS THE ILLEGAL ADOPTIONS. I have little kids. This is the only family my kids know. I’d rather die than have them taken out of my custody. That is what has him owned.

[HLPhat]

>>Anyway, if he came out as gay, that would not be a big deal.

Yeah, what’s a little more queer abomination-of-nature gasoline on the burning Republic. /s

[Yaelle]

Seriously, in America today, it would not be seen as a big deal. Look at the Bruce Jenner thing.

[HLPhat]

>>Seriously, in America today, it would not be seen as a big deal.

That’s evidence of the extent to which America has been subversively demoralized.

>>Look at the Bruce Jenner thing.

He’s an abomination of Nature and a Useful Idiot.

[Impy]

I would have no problem if the court did the opposite and stuck down “gay” “marriage” laws in every state, as they should. States have no right to sanction nonsense like that.

[rdb3]

*

[highball]

“I would have no problem if the court did the opposite and stuck down “gay” “marriage” laws in every state, as they should. States have no right to sanction nonsense like that.”

Then you can’t complain when SCOTUS imposes gay marriage on the rest of the nation later this year.

States Rights isn’t something to be casually tossed aside when states do things you don’t like. States may make bad choices, but that’s the beauty of our system; you don’t like public policy in your state, you can either choose to campaign against it or move to a state more to your liking.

We must be consistent in our principles.

[Impy]

Then you can’t complain when SCOTUS imposes gay marriage on the rest of the nation later this year.

Yes, I can, and if they do, I will, loudly, angrily, and profusely. And that is perfectly consistent with MY principles.

States Rights isn’t something to be casually tossed aside when states do things you don’t like.

I maintain they have NO such right to do most of the things I don't like. Like let 2 men get "married" (no government unit has the right to defy natural law), impose gun control (violates 2A which has been incorporated to the States), have such lax voting standards that foreigners and dead people manage to vote (which is a violation of the civil rights of all American citizens when it perverts Federal elections), suck the brains out of near-full term babies (which is murder), or tax out of state purchases (which is a ridiculous overeach).

I support the 14th amendment and it's entirely appropriate when it's used for positive results. I'm not a 19th century Democrat so "State's right" fanaticism is not my principle, crushing socialism and protecting freedom is my principle. The states can be as much the enemy of liberty as the the federal government. It is not less painful to Lady Liberty when she is raped by a Governor, a County Executive, or a Mayor, instead of the President or the Supreme Court.

The realpolitik of the socialists must be met with equal force, fire vs. fire, no knifes in gun fights. We have lost gay marriage, the only way it will ever go away is if there is a federal ban that is upheld by the courts.

Just my 0.02.