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
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820
Well, this is helpful. A clutch of Republican elites have run to the Supreme Court demanding the judiciary shut off debate on gay marriage.
has predictably been front page news at the New York Times
and in the world of the liberal media, the Times
leading with this:
More than two dozen Republicans — including a top adviser to Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, and a former congresswoman who made banning same-sex marriage her signature issue — have added their names to a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The brief comes as the White House is considering whether to weigh in on the same-sex marriage case; at this point, the Republicans who signed the document are taking a more expansive stance than [Alleged] President Obama, who favors same-sex marriage but has said he would leave it to the states, as opposed to making it a constitutional right.
The list of Republicans on the brief now tallies more 100, organizers say. It now includes Beth Myers, who ran Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser to him in 2012, and Marilyn Musgrave, a retired Colorado congresswoman who was once rated the most conservative member of the House by the American Conservative Union.
Ms. Musgrave, who lost her bid for a fourth term in 2008, was an unsuccessful sponsor of a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying; she once warned that if gay couples were allowed to wed, “the next step is polygamy or group marriage.”
The brief, organized by Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is gay, will be filed on Thursday as a friend-of-the-court, or amicus, brief to a lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that bars same-sex marriage, and all similar bans.
Some of the signatories’ names are published here
at the Blaze
. The group — including names such as Ted Olson (the Bush 43 Solicitor General), Meg Whitman (the last GOP nominee for Governor of California), Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, ex-Bush-appointed RNC chairman (and 2004 Bush campaign manager) Ken Mehlman, Bush national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Bush commerce secretary Carlos Guitierrez, Bush deputy attorney general James B. Comey and Reagan budget director David Stockman — has decided to force gay marriage on the American people without their consent.
Effectively making of this case a gay Roe v. Wade
They are asking the Court to force an elitist world view on a nation in which thirty states have chosen by state constitutional amendment, referendum or legislation — this is called “consent of the governed” — to support marriage between a man and a woman. Read this story at spectator.org ...
Filibuster Deal Restricts Senators’ Rights to Debate Judicial NomineesThe Heritage Foundation
Todd Gaziano and Andrew Kloster
This afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced a potential filibuster deal that, among other problematic provisions, limits post-cloture debate on federal district court nominees (and non-Cabinet-level officials).
Senators currently have up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate on the merits of a district court nominee; the new rule would permit only two hours. This proposal would seriously undermine the rights of sitting senators to call attention to problematic district court nominees and, as a consequence, would enable the President to make more philosophically questionable and professionally unqualified nominations in the future.
Providing advice and consent to judicial nominees are critical, constitutionally-enumerated responsibilities of U.S. senators. Those confirmed to a federal judgeship retain their job during “good behavior” (virtually for life), and can only be removed by House impeachment and Senate conviction with a 2/3 vote. If the merits of a cabinet secretary are worthy of 30-hours of debate, then any judge appointed for life should be also.
Federal district court judgeships are incredibly important: not only are they on the short list for circuit and Supreme Court nomination (Justice Sotomayor was a district court judge for the Southern District of New York), but district court judges are on the front lines of enforcing federal law, and perhaps more importantly, sit in judgment on whether Congress or the President have exceeded their enumerated powers.Read this story at blog.heritage.org ...
One of the primary planks of the Republican Platform is the party's commitment to recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment protection of unborn children. In this video clip, Mitt Romney states his opposition to that commitment. Mitt Romney is not a prolife candidate. Vote for life in 2012. Vote for Tom Hoefling. tomhoefling.com
Tom Hoefling I wrote the following
in response to an Orange County Register piece that was posted at FreeRepublic.com
, and it bears repeating here:
Not a single sitting justice of the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Not even one of the majority of the justices who were picked by Republican presidents, members of a party whose platform HAS recognized the personhood of the chld and their protection by our Constitution for the last 28 years.
So, what do you think are the chances that a "president Romney" (it makes me sick just typing that) would pick a judge who is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia?
I say the chances of that are for all intents and purposes ZERO.
Especially since Mitt Romney himself is a pro-choice democrat. He thinks God-given rights can be decided by a majority vote.
He thinks courts make our laws, and that only they get to decide what is constitutional. In other words, he supports the abortion on demand status quo, the destruction of the checks and balances that make our form of government possible, and the erasure of the legitimate lines of authority granted to the various branches and departments of our government.
He thinks states can alienate unalienable rights if they want. A Stephen A. Douglas Democrat position if there ever was one.
In other words, even in this shape-shifter’s current incarnation, his views are anti-republican.
No matter how you cut it, Obama or Romney, all the babies continue to die, and so does the republic whose founding premise was the equal protection of the rights of all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me.
Provided courtesy of the Committee for American Resource Self-RelianceFort Worth Star-Telegram
The Environmental Protection Agency had "no legal basis" to disapprove a Texas plan for implementing federal air-quality standards, a federal appeals court said.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to reconsider the Texas regulations and "limit its review" to ensuring that they meet the "minimal" Clean Air Act requirements that govern state implementation plans.
"If Texas's regulations satisfy those basic requirements, the EPA must approve them," the court said in its 22-page ruling this week.
The EPA rejected Texas' rules on minor new-source review permits in September 2010, saying they didn't meet Clean Air Act requirements. The Texas attorney general, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and businesses sued the EPA, challenging the ruling.
The EPA failed to identify any provisions of the law that the Texas program violated, the appeals court said. The agency also missed a deadline to rule on the Texas permit plan, the court said. Read this story at star-telegram.com ...
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."
-- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, 1788