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 ...
And lighting the White House up in a Rainbow pattern was not dividing the nation ? Saying that religious views are gonna have to change was not dividing the nation ? Your Obama Unicorn is not pooping skittles.
He's an idiot, and so's his editor.
You don't "infer into" anything. You infer from something.
But composition skills aside....he's still an idiot.
Washington DC is awash in crony capitalism and the average person is a helpless pawn in their game. Our Republic is a joke.
That was a long and torturous screed that essentially said the The Constitution of The United States does not say what it says and at the same time demonized those few justices that wanted to uphold the Constitution.
As an aside I have no idea why Chief Justice Roberts would come down on the side of Obama Care that he upheld and is in plain direct and simple violation of its written law relative to the state mandates to receive federal subsidies. The law was written as such to make the states take the subsides and enact obamacare. When they wrote the law they never thought that most states would reject the subsidy. Most did and that would destroy Obamacare.
Twice Chief Justice Roberts saved Obamacare, by making a fee a tax and by making the word state mean Federal State. This is not an interpretation of law that was in conjecture nor vague nor obscure. This was a political edict not based on law or language but political intent that each and every justice knew was not a constitutional act.
The dissenting opinion of Scalia is epic. In effect he has deemed the Supreme Court of the United States no longer a legitimate arm of the United States government.
Most do not realize but what Justice Scalia wrote is a call to arms.
“God Save the Republic”
I’ve taken to calling it “The Farce of July.”
Sounds like the communists. They got their revolution, but once they were in power, any kind of resistance to their power was supressed.
We will not see this matter reversed, at least in our lifetimes.
The worst thing we can do now is hang ourselves on it in the 2016 General.
Newt failed to read the polls and went into the 1998 Congressional and tried to base the campaign on Clinton’s conduct with Monica. It was a very bad choice, and cost him the Speakership.
2016 needs to be about the WHOLE issue of the direction of America, not individual elements thereof. If we get trapped in the little issues, it lets the Dems set themselves up as small individual “protectors.”
We win by asking:
“Were America’s problems fixed or made worse in 8 years of Obama-Clinton?”
“Are we more safe against terrorist attacks against our homes that we were before 8 years of Obama-Clinton?”
“Did we have ISIS before we had 8 years of Obama-Clinton?”
Were racial relations improved or made worse during 8 years of Hillary and Obama?”
Do you think your children have a brighter future after 8 years of Hillary and Obama?”
“Are you better off economically after 8 years of Obama-Clinton?”
And if Clinton is the nominee, we ALWAYS refer to the current presidency as “Obama-Clinton,” or “Hillary and Obama.”
Bottom line: We win 2016 or lose America.
I agree that the Republicans can’t win on the issue of gay marriage; it will have to do with the overall direction of the economy and world events. But the media will do their very best to make the election about gay marriage.
The RNC doesn’t want immigration, gay marriage or ObamaCare to be mentioned in 2016.
“We are just slightly better than those guys” is the new slogan
They will try, but the Right candidate will do an “Ollie North
North was subpoenaed before Congress, and they tried to crucify him about Irangate.
North, in his uniform, with his lawyer at his side, took no crap.
The next day, Congress wet it self apologizing because America has seen North live on TV, not the Newsies opinions of him.
The smart Republican candidate will remember Newt in ‘12 answering the “affairs’ question and also how well Trump will do when he takes some news hen apart on national TV in a debate.
They are the enemy.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but “jiggery-pokery” is now my new favorite word.
Bingo!
It is not treason to point out treason.
Who would stand in opposition?
Ok i dont get it...
First the daily beast says the dissenting scotus judges and the elected officials that shredded the upholding judges are committing treason.
Then they say that “Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Scalia and Thomas) makes a solid,and unsurprising,substantive case.”
Which is it?
Treason or solid substantive case?
bump
Not Scotuscare, but Robertscare.
Anybody up for a little Civil Disobedience?
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.