FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 10/11/2015 12:59:02 AM PDT by Monorprise
Besides doing something about certain lawless decisions made by our black-robed masters, something must also be done about how we came to such a place where they can cast their gaze across the fruited plain and whatever catches their fancy becomes the law of the land, indeed higher than the Constitution.
Roe was bad enough, a joke of a decision made out of whole cloth after Justice Blackmun consulted with phony history and the opinion of his young daughter. But Obergefell is much worse, coming as it does after twenty years of everyday Americans making their views abundantly and overwhelmingly known that they reject faux marriage of the same-sex.
Sitting in their august temple they did what they had wanted to do for some time, and to hell with the democratic process so faithfully adhered to by regular folks. They imposed faux marriage on the whole country with the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy getting snickers from left, right, and center though not from gay guys who are using some of it in their faux wedding ceremonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
I’m not sure how increasing their workload would help.
Pack the Court.
Governors should just ignore mandates form SCOTUS and pass state laws that supersede the Federal Law citing the 10th amendment. Any Federal Agent caught trying to force compliance should be sent to DC shackled.
and that goes for the jack@$$esthey all rode in on!
Of greater importance--the chief justice himself--Roberts--is not to be dignified by such implied deference considering his absurd decisions concerning ObamaRobertsCare.
And as the 14th Amendment did NOT alter the Constitutional power reserved to the States or to the individual *(amendment X ratified Dec.15,1791) that power to regulate and control Marriage within their borders—see Principles of Constitutional Law Thomas M.Cooley Little ,Brown and Company ,1880 pp.227-230 . I can only agree with the dissent —except in that the definition of Marriage seemed settled between 1791 and Justice James Wilson College of
Philadelphia Lectures on Law— and the rebellion of our time led by Mass. 2003 where the lawless Court ordered the weak Legislature to change the law to allow same sex marriage.Under our Constitution the Federal government is granted NO power to interfere with “marriage” Either we hav a Constitution and laws made pursuant to it— or we have the Progressive and tyrannical oracle of the supreme Court.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Since the 14th. Amendment applies to former slaves, only former slaves should be allowed to engage in same-sex “marriage”.
What about sex-slaves?
Governor Faubus of Arkansas tried that when SCOTUS ordered the integration of Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower sent in the U.S. Army.
USSC in Obergefell:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
What a whopper, “the Constitution grants them that right”, as if the Constitution grants rights at all!
Their irrationality continues:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”
Utter claptrap.
States must defend their people from this illicit action.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have brought disrepute upon the Court. They have sown chaos in the States (Rowan County, Kentucky is not the only place where people refuse to comply). They have shamed themselves and their profession. They have exercised the power of their office beyond the bounds of the authority of that office to lawlessly impose their radical views through mere color of law. (In short, to impose their radical views they have abused the stature of the Court, thus bringing disrepute upon the Court and themselves, and causing disorder and confusion within the States.)
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan must be impeached.
It is time to do it again and again in state after state.
What a whopper, “the Constitution grants them that right”, as if the Constitution grants rights at all!
I know, drives me up the wall that most people simply do not understand!
And this from Supreme Court Justices. It’s staggeringly stupid.
Increasing the workload would leave the court less time to address any particular issue and force them to do more of their own dirty work, rather than act simply as legislators with the lower courts serving as their enforcers.
This will slow them down, and buy us a little time to build a resistance movement.
“only can be done by a return to our original constitution w/o poyus, supremes, congress, and all the alphabet soup agencies that support them!!!!!!”
I don’t see that happening short of secession. Independence, followed by reunion after a decade or more of self-government to retrain our people on the capability to govern ourselves.
Realistically even doing that would probably require some sort of crisis where the Federal Government was already falling apart, beseaged, destroyed, or generally incompetent.
Such as the aftermath of a major a war with China, Russia, and a sudden and catastrophic economic collapse. All of theses things are unlikely to happen in the short space of time required to cause such a revolution.
Instead the decline while noticeable will be much slower in proportion to the implementation of socialist redistributive policy and repressive cultural warfare destroying the underlining fabric of America.
So by the time America is as poor and corrupt as Mexico, it really wont be America at all. The majority people will be corrupt Mexican atheist. With no idea or inclination of what it is to be free and successful. Indeed if Democrats have thier way most of them will live in squalor as they demand others provide for them while siting ‘past’ injustices’ as justification. Much like the black population of today.
The America that was born 1776 and became a superpower after ending the global practice of slavery and bring the world to an unpresident level of prosperity on the back of free enterprise will be gone, with only a dwindling few of its populations now exploited cultural foreigners in their own land.
It also means she will have to spend more of her time deciding cases rather than making new law.
This is suppose to slow them down, and force them to focus more on actual cases rather than making new law.
I agree DC as a city and place of Government is something we need to reevaluate. Politicians are by nature a lot of people who are impressionable by those around them.
Judges are likewise not immune to such influences. D.C. is a swamp, both literally(as where it was built) and figuratively(due to being overlown with such corrupt influences).
You can’t live in such a swamp and stay clean. The longer your there the more unclean your likely to get.
There was a time when most of the Federal workforce was fired following an election, and thus the culture and actual government policies could and would change according to the will of the people.
Perhaps I should rephrase that, It will make it more difficult for the Federal employees to make law by forcing them to spend a far larger share of their time enforcing the law they have already made.
While also exposing their lawmaking ideology to inequality of unequal justice, as each case is prone to stir their emotion driven judgement differently.
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.