SCOTUS To The States….Screw Y’all !!!

Once again the Supreme Court has decided to become a law-making body in it’s ruling on the Obergefell v. Hodges case under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities clause has always teetered on the edge of encroaching the states’ rights by the expansion of the federal government. In this case apparently the court decided that abrogation of state law was necessary in protecting the civil rights of persons that were previously guaranteed by the states. This is an egregious ruling on a number of levels as it not only vacates the rights previously defined by the states but also rights defined by (the federal) congress. At issue in my opinion, is the lack of definitive enumeration of the privileges and immunities under the amendment leaving the federal government, in this case the court, in a position to vacate almost anything enacted by the state governments. In this decision the court has walked onto a slippery slope by gutting Section 2 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by large majorities in both houses of congress. The current court shows a dangerous willingness to ignore not only states’ rights but duly enacted legislation by congress as well. One can only be concerned that another Clinton in the White House given a SCOTUS vacancy, might further push the court into an anti-federalist stance. To be clear the ruling does not force states’ existing marriage laws into permitting gay-marriage, but requires states to license gay-marriages performed out-of-state. Nonetheless, the ruling thoroughly tramples the federalist principle that the states have the preemminent duty to protect the civil rights of it’s citizens. Here we have a derelict Supreme Court once again ignoring the separation of powers by reversing their true constitutional duty to define what the duly enacted law is not what it should be, and in that process becoming a law-making body. Let me be clear here, I fully support civil unions with equal rights and protections given to lawful marriages, but marriage throughout history and biblically has always been the union of male and female. No doubt this ruling will open the door for further attacks on Christianity.

It’s a sad day for the Constitution as envisioned by the founders. James Madison is once again spinning in the grave.

Discuss and Carry On-

JB

14 comments

  1. 1
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    I heard from a reformed Lawyer (He quit and is doing something useful now), on another board. He had a chance to go over the decisions and he was aghast at them. (I think he’s also ok with Homosexual marriage) He said this is going to explode in their faces.

    Scalia is calling the Roberts court a threat to Americans’s freedom.

    I figure we will see the first assaults on a church or synagog in one to two months. (They wont’ go after a mosque for obvious reasons. They don’t want to be thrown off the roof)

    I have a bad feeling we’re going to see one or more justices assassinated in the next few years.
    :em06:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..John Roberts did it againMy Profile

  2. 2
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    A note since the edit function doesn’t function any better then the Government. when I said that the reformed lawyer was ok with Homosexual marriage, I meant that he was personally ok, not that he was ok with the actual decision. Just want to clarify what I said
    angrywebmaster recently posted..The Great Raisin Decision of 2015My Profile

  3. 3
    Mark growls and barks:

    Legislation from the bench is bad enough. From the Supreme Court it is tyranny. These precious snowflakes are stepping forward as dictators. Well, Supremes, how many divisions do you have? Here is hoping you learn a hard lesson in a most painful manner.

  4. 4
    Special Ed growls and barks:

    The Supreme Court has basically a binary function. Does the suit brought before it comply with or violate the law in question: Yes or No? Is the law in question in compliance with the Constitution: Yes or No?

    That’s it. That’s all. If they change the wording of the law to make a previously non-compliant phrase compliant, such action is meaningless and devoid of any significance. For they DO. NOT. HAVE. THE. AUTHORITY. to do so.

    Just as a hobo walking down the street can say to me that I am hired as CEO of Raytheon, the SCOTUS can change the wording of a law. But just as the hobo has absolutely no authority to hire or fire anyone from anything, so SCOTUS has no authority to alter the wording or phrasing of a law under their consideration. Both actions are possible, both are meaningless. The law remains exactly as originally worded until CONGRESS changes it and the PRESIDENT approves said change.

    Therefore, as previously noted here and there by many, ACA is in fact an unconstitutional law. It imposes a tax, yet in contravention to the Constitution originated in the Senate, not the House. Fail #1. It affords aid from the federal government to some states but not others, violating the 14th Amendment. Fail #2.

    Impeach SCOTUS in its entirety, sez I. It’s the only way to be sure.

  5. 5

    Special Ed says:

    Impeach SCOTUS in its entirety, sez I. It’s the only way to be sure.

    I’m getting to the point where the “nuke them from space” option appeals. Look at a map of the red/blue states. We could still use the Gulf and the Southeastern coasts.

  6. 6
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    LC Sir Clambake, Imperial Black Ops Technician, K.o.E. @ #:

    I’m getting to the point where the “nuke them from space” option appeals. Look at a map of the red/blue states. We could still use the Gulf and the Southeastern coasts.

    Well, here’s a nightmare for you. President Bernie Sanders and Vice President Elizabeth Warren
    :em06:
    :em08:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..Obama’s deal with Iran? Yeah, about thatMy Profile

  7. 7
    readerjp growls and barks:

    Declaring that America’s Founding Fathers “did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, says he is proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would subject the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices to judicial retention elections every eight years.

    Cruz – who served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist and spent more than a decade litigating before the Supreme Court – blasted the court not only for the same-sex marriage and Obamacare decisions this week, but also for “a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/cruz-amendment-makes-supreme-courtsubject-to-elections/#phXKmL5ZD2MdFPGy.99

  8. 8
    VAconservative growls and barks:

    Impeach? Why sure.

    Let me know when there is more than two or three members of either house with the cojones to even utter it, much less write it up and offer it to the members with a chance of even being heard in Committee, much less ever leaving there to go before the full membership.

  9. 9
    LC_Salgak growls and barks:

    angrywebmaster says:

    Well, here’s a nightmare for you. President Bernie Sanders and Vice President Elizabeth Warren

  10. 10
    LC_Salgak growls and barks:

    LC_Salgak says:

    angrywebmaster says:

    Well, here’s a nightmare for you. President Bernie Sanders and Vice President Elizabeth Warren

    My browser (Pale Moon) doesn’t seem to like the interface. . . but. . .

    DANGIT, Warn someone before you post shit like that. . .

  11. 11
    angrywebmaster growls and barks:

    LC_Salgak @ #:

    DANGIT, Warn someone before you post shit like that. . .

    Why?
    :em05: :em07:
    angrywebmaster recently posted..PennLive shoots itself in the footMy Profile

  12. 12
    Fa Cube Itches growls and barks:

    angrywebmaster @ #:

    Scalia is calling the Roberts court a threat to Americans’s freedom.

    Scalia’s right, but wrong. Roberts et al. *would have been* a threat to American’s freedom, if that freedom really existed to any degree anymore, but it doesn’t, and it hasn’t for decades.

  13. 13
    Fa Cube Itches growls and barks:

    Mark @ #:

    “Well, Supremes, how many divisions do you have?:

    *confers briefly with King Barack I*

    All of them, peasant. We have all of them.
    - John Roberts, Oberrechtsanwalt and Reichsprotektor of Penumbras and Emanations

  14. 14

    Seems to me that the SCOTUS is only supposed to decide whether something applies within AMERICAN law, not make the law nor apply foreign law to an AMERICAN case. :em03: SCOTUS ain’t no mo’. Deciding that this clip of the 14th over rules the 10th is rather a stretch.