Gregg Jackson

In today’s Washington Post Ralph Reed states:

“Look, if the Supreme Court does with marriage what it did on abortion, which is to impose the laws of New York and Massachusetts and impose them on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, it will make this issue more divisive and contentious, not less so,”

Reed makes the often-made mistake by conservatives of assigning powers to the Supreme Court that it doesn’t possess.

The Supreme Court didn’t “impose” any laws on any states since the judiciary possesses no law making powers. Individual sovereign states merely treated a toothless, unconstitutional, immoral court opinion as if it were actual law. In other words, individual sovereign states ceded law making power and authority to the court which the court DID NOT POSSESS in the first place. (As Romney did when he falsely asserted the court forced him to sign in $50 co-pay abortions and pass out marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts).

This is what I believe Christian and conservative leaders should be proactively saying now in anticipation of the Court’s likely ruling that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional:

“If the Supreme Court rules that the exclusivity of male-female marriage to be unconstitutional they will have issued an anti-Constitutional, illegal, immoral and legally null and void administrative opinion (as Roe v Wade was) that each individual sovereign state has the Constitutional and moral obligation to ignore since any law or court opinion contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law is no law at all and since the judiciary possesses no law making authority. As President Lincoln once famously said, ‘..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ May that not be the case in our nation.”

When conservatives perpetuate toxic liberal lies by ceding their illogical, specious and faulty premises and pre-suppositions, (in this case that court opinions become the “law of the land” the moment they are issued) we always lose…

 
 
"[I]f the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ May that not be the case in our nation.”

-- Abraham Lincoln
 
 
"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."

-- Abraham Lincoln

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_The Witherspoon Institute - Public Discourse

Joel Alicea

Those who oppose judicial supremacy follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln himself.

Newt Gingrich’s statements about the judiciary during the December 15, 2011, GOP debate and on Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation the following weekend ignited a firestorm over his view of American constitutionalism that has been smoldering in the media for several months now. His challenge to judicial supremacy—the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution—has been much condemned, particularly because Gingrich’s argument also criticizes the declaration of judicial supremacy in the Court’s 1958 desegregation decision, Cooper v. Aaron. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress was quick to accuse the former Speaker of siding with the white supremacists of the 1950s when Gingrich first released his position paper on the judiciary in October.

Although the media’s breathless denunciations suggest otherwise, Gingrich is not the first public figure to challenge the Cooper Court’s assertion of its supremacy over constitutional interpretation. Attorney General Edwin Meese did the same in a 1986 lecture at Tulane University. Meese’s address elicited a similarly angry response from the press, especially from columnist Anthony Lewis, who made Cooper the centerpiece of his appraisal of Meese’s speech. As was the case in 1986, the debate over Cooper in the past few months has been confused, epitomized by the New York Times’ recent suggestion that Gingrich’s critique of Cooper has “disturbing racial undertones.” The Times and others misunderstand the history and law of that famous case. Those who argue that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning need not deny the fact that Cooper was rightly decided; they can and do celebrate the courage of that opinion.

Cooper v. Aaron came to the Supreme Court under extraordinary circumstances, the drama of which is matched by...

Read this important article at thepublicdiscourse.com ...