Posted on 02/10/2015 6:03:47 AM PST by 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."
Actually, the States are fighting back, finally:
1. Some 25 States are sueing Obambi regarding his over-reach on amnesty;
2. Numerous States are passing many laws for "open carry" and "conceal carry";
3. Some 36 States have not signed on to Obamicare. They also have a lawsuit against the subsidies that are illegal for those States that didn't institute such;
4. The majority of Governors up for relection were replaced by Republicans, as well as most State legislatures.
We can argue about RINOs, but there is a trend growing for State sovereignty.
They spent millions on getting the vote on the ballot in states and then they lost. They then go judge shopping and have the fed judges to overrule state laws.
This is an outrage and it shows the feds are more and more taking over states just like common core is being used in education.
Remember, the whole “gay rights” issue is nothing but the spearpoint in the crusade to criminalize Christianity.
When you understand that, all becomes clear.
We need a lot more examples of the other thread -
Sheriff stands up to IRS
The states should control almost everything. Its time to drasticly cut the handout group off. The Bushes , Obamas ect. You do that by cutting the fed to about 1% of what it is today. Hopefully the fed overreach is pushing it to that. Judges appointed by the feds have a conflict of interest. Major change with the way the fed works, its power ,must all.be addressed. The fed govt should not be able to spend us into debt making them and their friends wealthy. 99% of the power should be with the individual states. The states have to take the power over. Of course the feds wont like it, but that’s their problem.
Exactly. They did arrest the VA gov when he had not broken one Va law. Afraid he would become Pres. For the states to think they have to take this garbage is plain silly. We can read the constitution. It’s time we stopped it all ! We can use the Fed for possible the military, but not much more. The justice dept ect should be ended. We will govern ourselves. It’s unconstitutional. The supremes, see ya !
Check out the Convention of States Project.
Yea we know that , but having to explain to the trolls and libertarians on here who pretend to be conservative always ignore the real true agenda and think this is about marriage and that;s all.
They wanted civil unions because it was not our business and they wanted to see their kin in hospital.
They wanted marriage to feel equal.
They want adoptions now.
They want to teach homosexuality in schools now to 3rd graders.
they now sue anyone who opposes them and still we have those libs including on here who pretend to be conservative saying marriage is not our business and we are imposing our views on them.
.
>> “It’s time we stopped it all !” <<
.
But its not going to happen.
.
In the 2nd amendment!"
We must exhaust all peaceful means first. That's what COS is all about.
Back up a bit & see how this busted dike started this mess.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/27/patricia-todd-gay-alabama-lawmaker-threatens-to-ex/
Extortion is a crime.
.
Strong evidence that the end of the Shemitta year that begins at sundown, March 21 will probably bring the beginning of Daniel’s “70th week.”
.
The left’s primary argument against states’ rights is “racism”. Of course, the left’s primary argument against mac & cheese is “racism”, so they should just be ignored.
The answer to their fallacious argument is simple -
if it becomes a problem, we’ll address it,
but until it is a problem, we’ll err on the side of
states rights and personal freedoms as stated in
the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Yes...I’m not the bucket list type...but he is one of the few people I would love to have dinner with ...or run into him and his wife at an RV campground
John Roberts has turned out to be a real loser of a Chief Justice. And where is Alito on this?
The Constitution already has a remedy to stop judicial activism. Congress has the power to create a law that is exempt from judicial review.
If 34 states (2/3 of the 50 states) vote for an "Article V" convention, then the convention can meet, a fact that the neither current occupant of the White House nor the Supreme Court can change. Congress cannot stop it either. The delegates from the states can be instructed, under penalty of felony under state law, to limit the scope of the convention to a few issues, such as ending Federal court jurisdiction over marriage. This would prevent a convention from overturning the existing Constitution, as had been done by the 1787 convention that eliminated the Articles of Confederation. After propossed amendments are passed by the convention, 3/4 (38) of the state legislatures must ratify any amendments approved by the convention. This process bypasses Congress entirely.
Timing is everything. We may be at the high tide of Republican influence at the state level.
Alito will stand with Thomas and Scalia.
Roberts will probably stand with those 3, but perhaps because 4-5 doesn’t win. He will want to save his negative publicity for the Obamacare case.
The Article V convention effectively bypasses the current Federal structure. Granted, this method was never used, but it is available if state level Republicans and the few pro-life Democrats that may still be around in places like Pennsylvania and Kentucky act quickly.
YES! It is time for NULLIFICIATION for all un-Constitutional laws by the Fedgov leviathan, including erroneous decisions by the USSC.
Just think NO! Do it quietly and go about your business. As big as the Fedgov is, it doesn't have the resources to hammer everyone for every socialist issue they push. Those "unconnected" citizens who make a loud statement will be made the example.
Nullification of the Federal Government's over-reach by your Local and State gov is the last option we have to restore our Rights. Obviously, the soap box nor the ballot box works anymore.
If Obama and Holder and can ignore the laws of the land, so can you. Eventually, the lawsuits are going to swarm the courts regarding this. And if the USSC doesn't do its Constitutional duty, then ignore them also. What are those nine going to do? What have they ever done to enforce their unConstitutional edicts? Everybody just buys their decisions as the final word. Really? So it's okay by them that we kill our children in the womb?
Also, as far as citizen power, remember that your local Sheriff is the supreme local authority regarding local matters. They can often over-rule the Fedgov. Think Sheriff Joe in Arizona. The Fedgov has tried to take him down, but to no avail. They simply don't have the authority nor the power.
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.