Ever since the Kelo decision I have wondered just what the hell was wrong with the Supreme Court. In that travesty of justice it was declared legal for the government to steal, sorry, appropriate, your property and give it to another private entity on the basis that the new owner might provide some “public” good by, for example, increasing the tax base. The history of the actual Kelo development proves that theory false. Yet, the law remains and is many times abused.
In two days over three rulings this month the alleged justices have outdone themselves in the intellectual gymnastics department. It appears now that reason in the court has the life expectancy of a donut within 25 miles of Michael Moore.
In Obergefell v. Hodges justice Roberts (of whom I am no fan) wrote in his dissent
“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.” This time he was exactly right.
In a side note two of the liberal judges that chose to impose gay marriage on America have spoken in defense of gay marriage and even performed gay marriage ceremonies. Ethical requirements demanded these two recuse themselves from the gay marriage case. Demonstrating their true liberal colors and devotion to situational ethics, they chose not to.
It only took a couple of days (they had to get the celebratory orgies out of the way first I’m sure) for the progressive whack jobs to start their “tolerance” tirades. Contemplate the alleged intelligent discourse from Jay Michaelson at the Daily Beast (a site best known for its minimal IQ requirements and slavish devotion to democratic talking points). This simulated intellectual exercise is both representative of liberal/progressive responses to the courts decision and filled with false premises so devoid of reason that it is difficult to know where to start when debunking it. In the interest of fairness I should point out one, he actually got he court citations correct and second, I will try to respond as simply as possible. I wouldn’t want to strain their apparently overtaxed intellectual capacities.
Michaelson begins with a question, “In controversial cases, is the role of jurist to inflame controversy, or quell it?”
The questions premise is false and the answer is neither. In its simplest terms the court is to be presented with a question. The court then applies the law as it is written, not as they would like it to be or as they think it should be, or as the polls suggest, to the question at hand within the bounds of the constitution. Controversy is to be dealt with by the people through their legislative representatives. You know like the 32 states that voted to codify what everyone has known for 6,000 years, that marriage is made up of a man and a women. For ideologues like Michaelson who view everything from the prism of liberal ideology and/or race, this is to much to ask for. He continues.
“In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case which found race-based marriage bands 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.”
Michaelson either doesn’t know or doesn’t care (I suspect the latter) that most of the “racist” southern states at the time were, and had been governed for some time by democrats (ie people like himself). Again, the court is only to determine how to apply the law as written within the bounds of the constitution. He prefers to intimate that gay marriage is a civil right. It is clearly not. Still, he drones on.
“ 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.”
Finally, we get to the overheated, allegedly intelligent criticism. How dare those pesky “conservatives” deign to disagree with his highness. Why I bet Michaelson even graduated from a prestigious school of journalism with a minor in how to change the world. What could some simple minded conservative teach him? Even worse, how dare a black conservative lecture him. The very nerve of justice Thomas. I’m guessing he was to distraught to remember that this same court, the same majority justices, in the DOMA case, stated that marriage was the domain of the state, not the federal government. Liberals have no use for precedent unless they want it. Still, he bloviates on.
“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.”
Apparently asking the court to stay within the bounds of the constitution or recognize a precedent set by the very same judges is a “shocking display of treason.” Michaelson clearly feels threatened by the dissenters micro aggressions of not thinking the same way he does and not caving instantly to his version of political correctness. After all, haven’t Boehner and McConnell shown the proper way for republicans to grovel? The four dissenting justices are correct in their belief that a court that cannot limit itself to its constitutionally defined borders is in fact illegitimate and not worthy of respect. Such a court, as we now seem to have, is merely an extension of whatever political party is in power.
I can summarize Michaelsons article this way. He obviously believes that five justices have the right, enumerated nowhere I might add, to assume in this case that, “They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment, (Justice Roberts). I can’t help but wonder if in Michaelson’s closed world, did the justices get the Citizens United ruling correct? Still anxious to inundate us with his superior intellect he warns direly.
“Why not just tell the Religious Right to buy pitchforks and blowtorches? Chief Justice Roberts’ ironic opinion is immoderate in alleging immoderacy, extreme in alleging extremism.
Justice Scalia came next. And he begins thus: “I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”
It seems inevitable that rhetoric like this will stir the next Confederate flag-waving zealot to an act of, if not domestic terrorism, at least outrageous revolt. How could it be otherwise?”
Inevitable? I know Michaelson is drenched in liberal ideology to the point of breathlessness but even a casual perusal of history proves his prediction questionable at best. From simple minds come simple conclusions. Michaelson, if he would make the effort, would learn quickly that conservatives almost never commit “domestic terrorism” or acts of “outrageous revolt.” Well, except for microaggressing by not voting democrat. He is far to immersed in his ideology and democratic party talking points to know or even care that the kind of acts he bemoans are committed almost exclusively by liberals and liberal demagogues. His gratuitous insertion of the Confederate flag is also telling. Like all liberal lemmings he feels compelled to jump on the flag hate fest. He is clearly ignorant of the flags history and the history of the Civil War. It is true that some hateful people have adopted that flag as their symbol. That is just as corrupt as gays adopting the rainbow as their symbol for shoving their arms up someones rectum. And yes they actually do this.
Even so, Michaelson can take some comfort in the response of fellow “journalists.”
A Harrisburg, PA newspaper has announced that it intends to censor views about marriage it deems no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.
John L. Micek, editorial page editor, former state capital reporter and ferocious defender of free speech (okay, I made up the last one), made an announcement after the Supreme Court forced gay marriage on the county. He wrote, “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.”
When called out on his decision to limit free speech he took to his Twitter account to confirm his displeasure with any who dared to disagree with him. Said Micek, “This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.” Simple? What I’m sure he meant but couldn’t bring himself to say was simpleminded.
When his condescending remarks failed to cool the flames, Micek tried to walk his intolerance back just a bit, “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”
Micek goes on to compare opposition to same-sex marriage to “hate speech.” Translation, only those who agree need appear. So it will go with much of the media.
Given the lefts devotion to hate it is a certainty that Christians like myself will be targeted for what can only be described as persecution. Their hate fest has been going on piecemeal to date but now, hiding behind the skirts of five liberal/progressive judges the militant homosexuals will begin targeting in earnest as soon as the next orgy is over.
The two most pressing questions for me now are, how did we get to this point and what should we do next.
Craige McMillan described the path to this point in a recent column, “Washington, D.C., is now an echo chamber filled with pompous people-pleasers and others with checkbooks at the ready who want to be pleased. With enough money in hand, voters become irrelevant because they can be manipulated once every few years.
There is no moral compass guiding our nation’s decisions. The result with these finger-in-the-air types is situational ethics, contradictory laws and enforcement, and ultimately chaos – which destroys the many for the benefit of the few. Therefore, sexual license now automatically entitles one to a marriage license – which states cannot deny. Children become chattel. And that most basic right – conscience – is to be denied the many in service of the DC cocktail circuit.”
As for what to do next? Former lesbian Janet Boynes offers the following, “We are living in times where our faith will be tested. These are times in which we will be ridiculed for our beliefs and perhaps even incarcerated for holding the word of God as our voice of truth. As someone who has walked away from homosexuality and now has a ministry that helps men and women who desire to come out of this lifestyle, I have the responsibility to stay grounded in what I know is true. But it doesn’t stop there; you, also have the responsibility to remain steadfast without caving in to the pressures of this world. … The Supreme Court cannot redefine what they didn’t create.” Amen sister.