[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: SCOTUS GAY MARRIAGE DECISION MAKES CONCEAL CARRY LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES
Source: By Patriot Post Staff on June 27, 2015
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 28, 2015
Author: By Patriot Post Staff on June 27, 2015
Post Date: 2015-06-28 12:53:30 by GrandIsland
Keywords: None
Views: 6444
Comments: 26

Citing a report by BearingArms.com, Colonel Allen West argues that there’s an unintended flip side to the Supreme Court’s violation of the U.S. system of federalism. One that will be quite upsetting to the liberal progressives who celebrated yesterday’s decision.As West notes, since the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

“The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: …No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Here’s the kicker — as the writer at BearingArms.com notes: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are ‘shall issue’ on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

In other words, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

As West writes: “Since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states. Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state. Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy.

Bottom line – the Supreme Court of the United States just solidified the right to keep and bear arms — and made it clear with their decision on marriage that no state – including Illinois – has the “right” to infringe upon another’s Second Amendment right. Notes West, “If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!”


Poster Comment:

interesting

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#0)

Poster Comment:

interesting

Your buddy misterwhite, as usual, doesn't think so. -- Read his rant over at the other thread about West's comments..

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28   13:08:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine (#1)

Did I post a duplicated article?

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-28   13:11:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)

It appears I posted an already posted article. Please remove this. Thanks. GI

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-28   13:14:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: GrandIsland (#2)

Did I post a duplicated article?

Not really. I appears to be someone else's comments about what West originally wrote.

Let it stand...

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28   13:31:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#4)

Not really. I appears to be someone else's comments about what West originally wrote.

Let it stand...

It came across my FB feed... I found it interesting.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-28   13:33:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: GrandIsland (#5)

I found it interesting.

It's more than interesting, West's reasoning is constitutionally impeccable, although I won't hold my breath to see the SCOTUS to agree with his opinion.

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28   13:38:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GrandIsland (#0)

A good point that would have never occurred to me.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-06-28   14:56:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: GrandIsland, sneakypete (#5)

It came across my FB feed... I found it interesting.

I find it stupid.

Try smoking a joint in public outside Colorado or Oregon. Try hiring a hooker outside Nevada. Try some open carry in Chicago or NYC or the Beltway. Soon things will be much clearer.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-28   20:29:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative (#8)

I find it stupid.

I don't find constitutional rights stupid. West is correct. That doesn't mean corrupt pieces of shit will be consistent.

Because pieces of shit don't follow the constitution doesn't make the truth stupid.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-06-28   20:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#9)

Let's see West actually do some open carry in NYC/Chicago/Beltway.

Until then, he's all talk. And you're a rube.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-28   20:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TooConservative (#10)

Let's see West actually do some open carry in NYC/Chicago/Beltway.

Until then, he's all talk. And you're a rube.

I don't 'get' your point. West's comments make constitutional sense. Why do you object?

Why on earth do you WANT states to have the power to arbitrarily deny our right to concealed carry?

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28   20:51:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine (#11)

Why on earth do you WANT states to have the power to arbitrarily deny our right to concealed carry?

I'm saying West will never do what he has advocated.

Anyone who decides to try his advice to carry guns (open carry or CCW) will get arrested and prosecuted in the anti-gun jurisdictions.

West isn't stupid. Maybe he's hoping someone else will be.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-28   21:53:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#12)

So you don't want states to have the power to arbitrarily deny our right to concealed carry, you just want to call anyone who thinks he made a valid point, -- a rube.

Gotcha.

tpaine  posted on  2015-06-28   23:37:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: GrandIsland (#0)

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”

This case does not mean anyone’s concealed carry permit must be recognized in all 50 states. The Court could issue such a ruling based on the “reasoned judgment” of a court majority that such is what the law should be. Or, the “reasoned judgment” of five justices could find that the civilian right to keep and bear arms should be struck down in all fifty states.

The Court majority has arrogated to itself, the power to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever their personal “reasoned judgment” means it to be, in defiance of what the ratifiers of the provisions meant to ratify, and more than two centuries of indisputed interpretation.

Scalia dissent at 2

Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court's claimed power to create "liberties" that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Scalia dissenting at 5:

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its "reasoned judgment," thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because "[t]he generations that wrote and rati­fied the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . " One would think that sentence would continue: ". . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution," or per­haps ". . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation." But no. What logically follows, in the majority's judge-empowering estimation, is: "and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its mean-ing."15 The "we," needless to say, is the nine of us. "History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries."16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People's understanding of "liberty"—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four "principles and traditions" that, in the majority's view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.

Scalia dissenting at 5-6:

Not surpris­ingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Scalia dissenting at 6:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. 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.

Scalia dissenting at 7-8:

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate con­curring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality." (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Scalia dissenting at 7-8, footnote 22:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opin­ion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Scalia dissenting at 9: (conclusion)

Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the "least dangerous" of the federal branches because it has "neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm" and the States, "even for the efficacy of its judgments." With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabash­edly based not on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Alito dissenting at 2-3:

The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For clas­sical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today's majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning.

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that "liberty" under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are "'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradi­tion.'" Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720-721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. _, _(2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). Indeed:

"In this country, no State permitted same-sex mar­riage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941. Nor is the right to same-sex marriage deeply rooted in the traditions of other na­tions. No country allowed same-sex couples to marry until the Netherlands did so in 2000.

"What [those arguing in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage] seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 7-8) (footnote omitted).

For today's majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. The Justices in the majority claim the authority to confer constitutional pro­tection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.

Alito dissenting at 3-4:

Noting that marriage is a fundamental right, the majority argues that a State has no valid reason for denying that right to same-sex couples. This reasoning is dependent upon a particular understanding of the purpose of civil marriage. Although the Court expresses the point in loftier terms, its argument is that the fundamental pur­pose of marriage is to promote the well-being of those who choose to marry. Marriage provides emotional fulfillment and the promise of support in times of need. And by bene­fiting persons who choose to wed, marriage indirectly benefits society because persons who live in stable, ful­filling, and supportive relationships make better citizens. It is for these reasons, the argument goes, that States encourage and formalize marriage, confer special benefits on married persons, and also impose some special obliga­tions. This understanding of the States' reasons for recog­nizing marriage enables the majority to argue that same-sex marriage serves the States' objectives in the same way as opposite-sex marriage.

This understanding of marriage, which focuses almost entirely on the happiness of persons who choose to marry, is shared by many people today, but it is not the traditional one. For millennia, marriage was inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate.

Alito dissenting at 6:

"At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any cer­tainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assess­ment. The Members of this Court have the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply the Con­stitution. Thus, if the Constitution contained a provi­sion guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be our duty to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the is­sue of same-sex marriage. In our system of govern­ment, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials." 570 U. S., at_(dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 8-10) (citations and footnotes omitted).

Alito dissenting at 7-8:

Today's decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and im­pose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic sup­porters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims.

Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today's decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture's conception of constitutional interpretation.

Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the ma­jority's claim of power portends.

Thomas dissenting at 3:

Even if the doctrine of substantive due process were somehow defensible—it is not—petitioners still would not have a claim. To invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause at all—whether under a theory of "substantive" or "procedural" due process—a party must first identify a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property." The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of "liberty," but the concept of "liberty" it conjures up bears no resem­blance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses.

Thomas dissenting at 7:

Even assuming that the "liberty" in those Clauses en­compasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular gov­ernmental entitlement.

Thomas at 13:

But "liberty" is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment. The majority's "better informed under­standing of how constitutional imperatives define . . . liberty," ante, at 19,—better informed, we must assume, than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our Constitution is a "collection of 'Thou shalt nots,'" Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not "Thou shalt provides."

Thomas dissenting at 17-18:

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One's liberty, not to mention one's dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today's decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on "due process" to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the "liberty" protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.

I extensive quoted the Roberts dissent here.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-28   23:54:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#10)

Let's see West actually do some open carry in NYC/Chicago/Beltway.

The Homos didn't storm into SCOTUS demanding "gay marriage" just the other day...

They launched a multi-front carpet-bombing/artillery campaign from social media, mainstream media, pop culture, and gubmint for the last couple of years to soften up the defenses.

Give West (and the rest of us) time. This can 'o worms (and principle) is now opened.

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-29   9:55:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: TooConservative, tpaine (#12)

I'm saying West will never do what he has advocated....

West isn't stupid. Maybe he's hoping someone else will be.

Must he execute his theory tomorrow for his observation to be valid?

No, West is providing anecdotal constitutional evidence that exposes a two-edged sword for the Left. Developing this case will take time to sort out.

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-29   9:58:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, CZ82, TooConservative, Vicomte13, tpaine, Grand Island, A K A Stone (#14) (Edited)

Scalia dissenting at 5-6:

Not surpris­ingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Scalia rips into the entire SCOTUS system that pretends to objectively delegate "justice" when it is clear that the decision rendered on "Gay Marriage" was purely partisan opinion and NOT a matter of law.

Scalia also takes to task the absurdity of NINE (partisan) judges displacing the consent of over 300 millions. (Isn't that why we have a Congress??)

Scalia also noted that there is not a single Protestant/Evangelical SC judge to represent any one of its flock of 75-80 MILLION (yet there are two homosexuals and three Jews)-- an in-justice of monumental proportion. (Yahoo News will NOT make mention of this, will they?) This renders SCOTUS a complete and utter partisan, over-officious JOKE.

Btw -- Great excerpts, Chan. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas ALL tore huge gaping holes into the Kangaroo Court that even they now readily admit is the Supreme Court of the US.

As you've noted, the bad news:

"The Court majority has arrogated to itself, the power to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever their personal “reasoned judgment” means it to be, in defiance of what the ratifiers of the provisions meant to ratify, and more than two centuries of indisputed interpretation."

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-29   10:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Liberator (#17)

Scalia also noted that there is not a single Protestant/Evangelical SC judge to represent any one of its flock of 75-80 MILLION (yet there are two homosexuals and three Jews)-- an in-justice of monumental proportion.

That needs repeating.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-06-29   10:24:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#14)

Alito dissenting at 7-8:

Today's decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law.

If a bare majority of Justices (five in a nation of 300 million) can invent a new right and im­pose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.

Power corrupts. There are no more "checks and balances." The Left and Globalists own ALL the cards...the media...and the message. THIS single decision has dictated the future. There is NOTHING to stop anti-Christian Marxist subversives from criminalizing the Bible as well as Churches as "hateful."

And now that FIVE subjective opinions have displaced the usual constitutional intent and legal precedence of the Founders (as Congressional legislation has also has been displaced), how can anyone seriously call the USA a "Republic"??

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-29   10:34:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: GrandIsland (#18)

That needs repeating.

The last time you'll see it repeated is....here.

The Left's minions of bigmouth crybabies -- always obsessing over "fairness," doesn't see anything grossly unfair (and suspicious) about 75-80 million people having ZERO representation in SCOTUS?? Oh wait -- just as long as they can now cram the entire toobox up their ying-yang and call it "marriage," that's all the "fair" they need.

Why haven't Protestant/Evangelical politicians started obsessing on their own miscarriage of representative justice? Lazy? Stupid? Naive? I don't get it.

Liberator  posted on  2015-06-29   10:53:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Liberator, Nolu Chan (#17)

Scalia dissenting at 5-6:

Not surpris­ingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Thanks to you both for parsing this out. Amazing.

Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-29   11:46:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu chan, liberator, CZ82 (#14)

"The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality." (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Wow! And spot on! LOL years of seeing his nation destroyed by activist judges just poured out in Scalia's opinion.

Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-29   12:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Liberator (#15)

This can 'o worms (and principle) is now opened.

Which now you can argue it be applied to other things like healthcare policies being portable across state lines!!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-29   13:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Liberator (#17)

Scalia rips into the entire SCOTUS system that pretends to objectively delegate "justice" when it is clear that the decision rendered on "Gay Marriage" was purely partisan opinion and NOT a matter of law.

He's right...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-29   13:11:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Liberator, LF resident Leftards (#20)

The Left's minions of bigmouth crybabies -- always obsessing over "fairness," doesn't see anything grossly unfair (and suspicious) about 75-80 million people having ZERO representation in SCOTUS?? Oh wait -- just as long as they can now cram the entire toolbox up their ying-yang and call it "marriage," that's all the "fair" they need.

And you know it won't stop here this is the tip of the iceberg.. Leftards are never happy and this means they will continue to pursue stupid schitt like this in an "attempt" to make themselves happy, which is "IMPOSSIBLE". Just ask any of the resident Leftards if they are happy, if they say they are they're lying and they know it!!!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-06-29   13:15:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Liberator, TooConservative, A K A Stone (#15)

This can 'o worms (and principle) is now opened.

The can 'o worms of substantive due process was opened in Scott v. Sanford.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-29   16:34:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com