Posts

Thanks to This Supreme Court Decision, the Government Could Seize Your Living Room

/9 Comments/in , /by

Take a look around your living room. There’s a risk that it could become part of a food court in a mall or an assembly line in a factory.

This is possible because of a decision handed down 10 years ago this month by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Kelo v. City of New London, the court ruled that private property can be seized and transferred to another private party for economic development. In the case, the city of New London, Conn., seized the homes of Susette Kelo and other property owners in order to revitalize the city.

A decade later, Congress still has not taken meaningful action to address this attack on property rights—despite overwhelming bipartisan support to do so. This failure by Congress needs to end this year.

Under the Fifth Amendment, private property may be seized only for a public use. Kelo effectively deleted “public use” from the Fifth Amendment. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor famously said in her dissent, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

While the threat of economic development takings can impact everyone, lower-income individuals are the most at risk, victims of a “reverse Robin Hood effect”—taking from the poor and giving to the rich. After all, cities typically seek out inexpensive properties that are not generating the desired economic benefits and transfer those properties to private parties that government officials think will help with economic development. (Read more from “Thanks to This Supreme Court Decision, the Government Could Seize Your Living Room” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senator Ted Cruz Tells States to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Homosexual Marriage

/24 Comments/in , /by

Credit – Getty ImagesBy NPR. Ted Cruz has some unsolicited advice for the states not specifically named in last week’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: Ignore it.

“Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it,” the Texas Republican told NPR News’ Steve Inskeep in an interview published on Monday. Since only suits against the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky were specifically considered in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which was handed down last Friday, Cruz — a former Supreme Court clerk — believes that other states with gay marriage bans need not comply, absent a judicial order.

“[O]n a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case,” the 2016 presidential contender added, “but there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgement.”

While Cruz’s statement may be technically true, federal district and circuit courts are obligated to follow the Supreme Court’s precedent and overrule all other states’ same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional.

The Texas senator then went on to suggest that Republicans who have called for following the court’s decision are members of a “Washington cartel” and are lying when they say they do not support same-sex marriage. (See more from “Sen. Ted Cruz Tells States to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling” HERE)


____________________________________

Megyn Kelly Grills Ted Cruz Over Supreme Court Fix; ‘You Want to Rewrite the Constitution?’

By Michael Schaus. Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz tangled with “The Kelly File” host Megyn Kelly Tuesday, defending his proposal to give American voters the power to remove Supreme Court justices through the ballot box.

Kelly challenged the Texas senator’s plan, saying his plan to “rewrite the Constitution” would result in a court that was even more political than it is now.

Justices are now appointed by the president with the confirmation by the Senate. Barring impeachment, they hold lifetime terms. And since only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached (Samuel Chase was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 and remained on the court), they serve in effect until they die or choose to retire.

Cruz, who has been vocal in his outrage over the court’s decisions last week upholding Obamacare and making gay marriage a constitutional right, argued that a amending the Constitution to allowing citizens to vote on retaining judges is the only way to keep the court in check . . .

“How would an electorate that twice elected Barack Obama create a court that you like better?” she asked. (Read more from “Megyn Kelly Grills Ted Cruz Over Supreme Court Fix; ‘You Want to Rewrite the Constitution?'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

It’s Official: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Is Betraying His Country [+video]

/9 Comments/in , /by

Chief Justice John Roberts today joined Kennedy and all the Supreme Court Democrats in upholding Obama’s unconstitutional, deceptive, and indescribably destructive healthcare law. Today’s decision in King v. Burwell declares that even though the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) specifically required individuals to enroll through state exchanges to obtain subsidies, enrolling directly through the federal government is essentially the same thing. This decision once again displays the Supreme Court’s willingness to ignore the clear intent of law in order to achieve a politically desired result. For Roberts it has written into stone an unmistakable pattern.

Roberts’ first betrayal was his mind-bending decision to call Obamacare a legitimate tax, whereas Obama had defended the law on the basis that it wasn’t a tax. An article in Republic magazine aptly described Roberts’ first betrayal:

‘Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,’ wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we’ve seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

His next was almost certainly throwing in with the Court’s leftists on gay rights – ignoring the clear state’s rights issue involved by voting not to hear five cases that defended traditional marriage as a state’s right. “Almost certainly” because a decision to hear the cases required only four in agreement and votes are taken in secret. Scalia, Thomas and Alito were likely willing to hear the cases. Where was the fourth vote?

Now Roberts has done all possible to seal this country’s fate by once again siding with Obama. In today’s decision, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of its mind-numbing idiocy (see pp. 27 – 29):

“The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so… Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State’… Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

Kennedy is usually considered the swing vote, but would have been hard put to defy Roberts. The chief justice’s siding with the Left gave Kennedy free rein to exercise his naturally squishy tendencies. Roberts will almost certainly side again with the homosexual rights activists against the Constitution’s First Amendment protecting freedom of religion. As described earlier, the upcoming gay rights decision is not about gay rights at all. If successful it will declare the rights of one pressure group, homosexuals, superior to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – a decision that will render the Constitution essentially irrelevant. Make no mistake: this has been the Left’s target all along, and the destruction of our Constitution will spell danger for all Americans, including gays. Liberal idiots, however, never get it.

The only remaining question is whether Roberts was a stealth appointment, i.e. a pretend conservative who revealed his true colors when it really counted, or if he was somehow compromised by this evil administration. The truth will likely never be known but is probably irrelevant anyway, as this man has repeatedly and unmistakably signaled his determination to betray those who appointed him, his political party and his country.

What a national disgrace. (“It’s Official: Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Is Betraying His Country”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Coming Attractions at the Supreme Court Theater of the Absurd

/1 Comment/in , /by

As usual in mid-June, the hearts of Supreme Court junkies beat ever more rapidly as they eagerly await “blockbuster” ex cathedra diktats from on high. Of great interest is whether Justice Anthony Kennedy meant what he said just two years ago, when five justices overpowered and insulted (Scalia, pp. 21, 25) four justices to declare unconstitutional an overwhelmingly enacted federal law restricting marriage to opposite sex couples. Writing for the five justices, Kennedy promised (pp. 25-26) that they had “confined” their ruling to requiring federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states choosing to make them lawful. However, what is now awaited is whether five justices will further abuse their power by barring any State from making same-sex marriage unlawful.

Justice Scalia added yet another warning (24) regarding a Kennedy promise. “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

The five-justice fiat two years ago was itself predicted (5-6) by Scalia a decade earlier: “… Every single one of these State laws … against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution … bestiality, and obscenity … is called into question by today’s decision….” His then scoffed-at prediction was vindicated in 2013.

If five justices, including Kennedy, again prove Scalia prescient, this “raw judicial power” spectacle will not be over.

Organizations long-advocating sex between men and boys, and between humans and animals (see also) doubtless anticipate their turn at having five human beings who happen to sit on the Supreme Court proclaim that the Constitution protects their “lifestyle choices”—regardless of duly enacted laws, historic beliefs and traditions, and the wishes of millions of Americans, often majorities, who still adhere to those beliefs.

Fanciful you say? Shortly after the last “confined” gay marriage decision, a group wedding for police dogs took place halfway round the world, as

nine pairs of police sniffer dogs dressed in shawls, hats and socks were placed on a decorated platform like those used in traditional Buddhist weddings.

* * * *

The dog marriages were registered by an official in the presence of a crowd of veterinary surgeons, medical doctors, top police officers and the public at a ceremony …. Local television showed the dog couples later being driven away in a decorated police jeep for their “honeymoons.”

Yes, it did take place halfway round the world. But in this age of instant worldwide communication, rest assured that once anyone anywhere concocts any far-out scheme, it will arrive here sooner or later, probably sooner.

And don’t be surprised if five justices give it serious consideration.

What is NOT Stated Here

The probable coming same-sex marriage decision will be but the latest illustration of a long history of judicial abuse of power. Nothing above should be misconstrued or—more likely—misrepresented as endorsing or opposing either side’s position(s) in the same-sex marriage decision by likely no more than five out of nine human beings who happen to be Supreme Court justices. Rather, the position taken here is that these five power-wielding mere mortals have no business deciding this at all. They have absolutely no legitimate Constitutional authority whatsoever to impose their personal moral values upon well over 300 million people in what was founded as a representative democracy.*

Dog-marriage is a reductio ad absurdum of what all too often has been perpetrated by justices, whose happenstance occupancy of high court black robes does not confer upon them superior morality, wisdom or rationality—contrary to their inflated opinion of themselves. Justices Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist were once left breathless (p. 12) by fellow justices’ “arrogance.” More recently, Scalia objected to (2) five justices’ “jaw-dropping … assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive.”

Not infrequently, judicial arrogance is accompanied by absurdity. With little effort, one can write a long article, or perhaps even a book, filled with examples of justices’ absurdities. A few should suffice to show that these are not confined to same-sex marriage, not by a long shot.

First, justices once declared (p. 41n) that raping a sixteen-year-old, under threat of death three weeks after she gave birth, was—unharmful! Second, few Americans realize that justices have created what they call a constitutional right exclusively for depraved human beings already convicted of the most gruesome acts to commit additional depraved violence free from any punishment whatsoever. (If five justices want something, they label it a “constitutional right,” regardless of whether or not highly literate people can find it in the actual Constitution.) Third, justices declared that a young man, who sexually assaulted four elderly women—including his grandmother—and murdered one of them, should be allowed to “succeed with the argument” that he should not be executed because he was only dangerous to old ladies (pp. 9-10) and would not be a threat if sentenced to life without parole (which, in reality, cannot be guaranteed). Even so, three out of four opinions on behalf of the rapist-murderer, occupying 19 pages, did not mention “grandmother” at all! Fourth, it is beyond absurd for justices to decree that no judge or jury can ever find (15-19) that a young man nearly 18 years old is mature enough to fully understand that premeditated torture-murder is immoral and unlawful, but that judges may rule (pp. 899, 970) that 12-year-old girls are mature enough to decide to have an abortion. (It should not surprise anyone if, not long from now, five justices rule that 12-year-old boys can be mature enough to validly consent to have sex with 45-year-old men.)

Popular Support Seeking Judicial Fiats

If popular support for same-sex marriage is growing, as advocates claim, why don’t they just ask elected legislators rather than unelected judges to write or re-write laws? Moreover, in states with initiative and referendum, a popular majority can change the law without legislators. After a California majority voted for Proposition 8 to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, it was beyond passing strange when opponents of that proposition went to court seeking its nullification by judicial fiat while, at the same time, claiming that a majority of voters now supported same-sex marriage. Why wasn’t another referendum sought for repeal? Recently, Catholic Ireland adopted same-sex marriage by referendum. Also, advocates already have obtained much from elected officials. If support is as widespread as claimed, it should be unnecessary to short-circuit the political process through judicial fiat, whose legitimacy is neither respected nor accepted by millions. (Of course, polls are always open to manipulation, and at least one recent poll was recently exposed as a fraud, in purporting to show wider than actual support for same-sex marriage.)

The advantage of legislative over judicial lawmaking is that justices “pre-empt [p. 20] the democratic debate” by “inscribing… current preferences…into our Basic Law.” These are made unchangeable (p. 567) by “remov[ing them] from the democratic process and writ[ing them] into the Constitution,” which is thus judicially amended to include sweeping rules embodying any five justices’ personal values.

For example, when they constitutionalized a right to homosexual sodomy, justices declared (p. 11): “liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” As quoted above, Justice Scalia objected that this called into question all state laws concerning sex. More recently, Justice Alito suggested that, if States are constitutionally prohibited from restricting marriage to one man and one woman, the same constitutional rule would require the States to permit incest (p. 33) and group marriage (pp. 17-19).

These examples illustrate Judge (and later Justice) Benjamin Cardozo’s famous reference to the “tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” That often happens when justices usurp the prerogatives of elected officials by deciding hotly contested political issues about which the Constitution is silent. By contrast, if these issues are left to elected officials to resolve after public debate, the law can be adjusted and re-adjusted. Some laws can then be left in place and others changed, without trying to turn them into irrational one-size-fits-all legislation. To have same-sex marriage, there is no need for blanket principles that apply to all sex matters, including man/boy and human/animal sex, incest, bigamy, polygamy—or dog weddings.

Justice Scalia repeatedly has told audiences that, when the Constitution says nothing about an issue, “persuade your fellow citizens.” Instead, many activists, apparently lacking confidence in their own persuasiveness, prefer to short circuit the process. Two decades ago, Scalia (joined by Rehnquist, White and Thomas) warned (p. 1002):

[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions [abortion] arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

And two years ago, Scalia repeated (p. 26):

We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat.

For decades, justices have been arrogantly, illegitimately —and absurdly—usurping legislative prerogatives, forcing their personal morality down the throats of everyone else.

Justice Thurgood Marshall’s former law clerk, Harvard Professor Mark Tushnet, asks: “Why do we let them get away with it?”

Why indeed!!

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Our Black Robed Rulers (aka the Supreme Court) Soon to Issue Decrees on 13 Important Cases

/5 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court is heading into the final month of its annual term.

In a potentially historic ruling, the court will decide whether same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, culminating a two-decade legal and political fight for [homosexual marriage].

Another much-anticipated decision will be whether the Obama administration may continue to subsidize health insurance for low- and middle-income people who buy coverage in the 36 states that failed to establish an official insurance exchange of their own and instead use a federally run version.

If the court rules against the Obama administration, about 8.6 million people could lose their subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

Between now and late June, the court will hand down more than two dozen decisions on matters such as politics, civil rights, free speech and air pollution. Several of these cases have been pending for months, suggesting the justices have been sharply split. (Read more from “Black Robed Rulers Soon to Rule on 13 Important Cases” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?

/9 Comments/in , /by

SCOTUS gay marriage APOne of the more destructive behaviors of those engaged in politics is the willful conflation of political or moral arguments with constitutional and legal arguments. Nowhere is this more evident than with debate over coercing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, and three other cases in which district and appellate courts were split, on whether to toss out state marriage laws or not. Two months ago, the 6th Circuit upheld Ohio’s right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby establishing a split with other federal circuits and creating the need for intervention of the Supreme Court.

What is before the Court?

In order to understand what is at stake this week, and eventually in June when the court renders a decision, we must first discern what is not before the court.

The court is not rendering an opinion, nor should it, on the morality or prudence of same-sex relationships. That is a question for society to answer.

The court is not rendering an opinion on whether two consenting adults have the liberty to live together in all ways. They certainly have that right and have been doing so for quite some time.

The issue before the court is whether there is a federal constitutional right for same-sex partners to obtain a marriage license, thereby preventing the people or legislators of sovereign states from defining marriage as it always has been since the nation’s founding.

This is not a question of religiosity or a debate over culture. That is a societal conflict that will be settled outside of court. Even the strongest supporter of homosexuality or the idea of a same sex marriage cannot deny the fact that there is no mention of any form of marriage in the Constitution. States have plenary authority over marriage. Justice Kennedy’s primary argument for overturning DOMA was that it represented federal encroachment on a state’s “broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relationships” (even though DOMA only defined marriage for federal purposes); certainly it would be hypocritical of him to now create a federal mandate barring states from defining marriage.

Corrupting the 14th Amendment

Supporters of federal coercion contend that their aspirations are mandated by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. But that is a prima facie absurdity because everyone in this country, including homosexuals, indeed have the right to marry. If they don’t desire or feel unable to marry the way the term has been defined since creation, that is not a denial of their due process. Remember, every homosexual couple also has the right to live together without a marriage, much like many heterosexual couples do in our generation.

What plaintiffs are asking is for the federal court system to simultaneously change the definition of marriage (which is not mentioned in the Constitution) while precluding states from maintaining their own definition through their democratic processes. It is simply beyond reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent states from denying a status that nobody would have conjured up at the time, especially a status that runs counter to Natural Law and Common Law. In the very least, proponents of same-sex marriage need to use the democratic process to change the definition of marriage in order to achieve their goals. And judging by their bravado about recent polls, what do they have to fear from letting the people decide?

In order to assert a new fundamental right, the Supreme Court has laid out a constitutional test in Washington v Glucksberg (1997) when the court ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest. The asserted right has to be so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” To prove a substantive due process violation of that right the court has ruled in Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales (2006) that the aggrieved person must show how this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

How can anyone assert such a claim of a concept that was not even conceived until this generation, thereby bypassing the political process to create that right?

Where is this headed?

Furthermore, what plaintiffs in the marriage cases can never answer is this: if marriage – as dictated by federal courts – is no longer defined as a special union between one man and one woman, what is the definition of marriage? They would have to define marriage, in the course of redefining it. They would have to draw parameters but it seems there is absolutely no legal jurisprudence one can employ to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage and not polygamist or incestual relationships

If anything, there is more of a Natural Law argument to include those relationships before homosexual ones because they can procreate. Unless of course, the court here is more interested in solving a political matter, than a legal one.

Accordingly, there is no rational basis for any one of the Justices to decide in favor of coercing states to adopt homosexual marriages but not all other relationships. Yet, four and possibly five Justice are so driven by personal beliefs that rational basis and legal jurisprudence will never sway their decision. So what is this really about?

The only way the Court can arrive at the conclusion so many in the media are supporting is for them to create a new protected class carved out exclusively for homosexuals. By using the court to create a new fundamental right and protected class instead of the political process to resolve a societal question, the Court will codify the anti-religious bigotry we’ve witnessed over the past few years into law. An Oregon baker, for example, is facing a $135,000 fine for not engaging in involuntary servitude to provide a specific service for a homosexual wedding.

Perforce, what is really before the court tomorrow has nothing to do with liberty, love, and equality for homosexual relationships; it is all about corrupting the Constitution and using the boot of government to violate the individual and religious rights of the other 97% of the population. (See “What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?”, originally posted HERE)

[Editor’s note: The following is a recent interview with this article’s author]

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why the Supreme Court Might Agree to Hear a Same-Sex Marriage Case After All

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Jonathan Larson / Getty

Photo Credit: Jonathan Larson / Getty

Last month, the Supreme Court surprised the national news media by refusing to hear any of the seven same-sex marriage cases that had been pending.

Following that denial of review, the status of same-sex marriage appears to be based on an odd sort of federalism.

If you live in a region of the country governed by a federal appeals court that has found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, you are free to enter into a same-sex marriage — even if your state recognizes only traditional marriage. For example, same-sex marriage is now legal in the areas governed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which includes Virginia, North and South Carolina, Maryland and West Virginia.

Certainly, the court decisions finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage are faulty. The Supreme Court’s 1972 summary decision in Baker v. Nelson is, formally at least, still good law.

That decision — which implicitly held that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage — was not overturned by last year’s Windsor v. United States decision.

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Takes Up Potentially Disastrous Obamacare Case

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: Daily Caller

Photo Credit: Daily Caller

The Supreme Court decided Friday that it will hear a challenge to the legality of premium subsidies in the federal exchange.

The court decided to hear the appeal in King v. Burwell, in which the Fourth Circuit Court ruled that Obamacare premium subsidies to customers in HealthCare.gov states were legal. The D.C. Circuit had ruled hours before in the best-known case, Halbig v. Burwell, that the text of the law restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges only– creating a circuit split that made it possible the Supreme Court would issue a final ruling.

At issue is the repeated requirement in the law that premium subsidies go to exchanges “established by the state.” Four lawsuits have cropped up that argue that the requirement makes subsidies in HealthCare.gov-run states illegal.

The Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court to wait to decide whether to take up the case until the D.C. Circuit Court issued a new ruling in Halbig v. Burwell. A December en banc hearing will force all judges on the circuit to rule on the case instead of the typical three-judge panel; and given the number of Democratic-appointed judges, the court is expected to find the federal exchange subsidies legal.

Read more from this story HERE.

Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Traditional Marriage; Stage Set for Supreme Court Intervention

/8 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Human Events

Photo Credit: Human Events

By The Associated Press.

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld anti-gay marriage laws in four states, breaking ranks with other courts that have considered the issue and setting up the prospect of Supreme Court review.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard arguments on gay marriage bans or restrictions in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee on Aug. 6 split 2-1, with Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton writing the majority opinion. The ruling creates a divide among federal appeals courts, increasing the likelihood the U.S. Supreme Court will now take up the issue.

The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage and that such change as expanding a definition of marriage that dates “back to the earliest days of human history” is better done through political processes.

“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” Sutton wrote, adding that it’s better to have change “in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

The president of pro-gay marriage group Freedom to Marry, Evan Wolfson, blasted the ruling as “on the wrong side of history.”

Read more from this story HERE.

________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Alaska Family Action

Photo Credit: Alaska Family Action

Natural Marriage Laws Ruled Constitutional by 6th Circuit Court

By Jim Minnery, Alaska Family Action.

Earlier this year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, widely known as one of the most liberal Justices on the bench, said the likelihood of the high Court taking up the marriage issue would largely depend on what the Sixth Circuit did with the issue. In her words, if the Sixth Circuit (representing Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) upheld the state’s definitions of marriage between one man and women, “there will be some urgency” for the United States Supreme Court to put it on their to do list.

Consider this an alarm.

Earlier today, the Sixth Circuit ruled that laws in each of those states that define marriage as a relationship between a man and woman are constitutional.

The Court said it would be inappropriate of them to make a final determination on the issue of marriage:
“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for the matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us — just two in truth — to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.” Click here to read the actual ruling.

Finally, they concluded that the legislative arena is the better place to resolve political debates over social issues:

“In just eleven years, nineteen States and a conspicuous District, account for nearly forty-five percent of the population, have exercised their sovereign powers to expand a definition of marriage that until recently was universally followed going back to the earliest days of human history. That is a difficult timeline to criticize as unworthy of further debate and voting. When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.
For this reason, we reverse.”

This decision comes only four weeks after the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of other decisions ruling that marriage is unconstitutional including the outrageous abuse of power by Alaska District Court Judge Tim Burgess.

Judge Burgess and the Sixth Circuit Judge’s ruling couldn’t be farther apart in terms of judicial philosophy. Now it looks as though we might see where the U.S. Supreme Court comes down on what has become the most important public discussion we’ve had as a country since Roe v Wade in 1973.

Stay tuned and be of good cheer.

Tony Perkins: Supreme Court Made 'Back-Alley' Decision on Gay Marriage

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: APThe U.S. Supreme Court’s recent refusal to hear cases upholding same-sex marriage will only ensure the issue rages for years to come, says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

“The court did a back-alley-type Roe v. Wade judicial decision by letting the lower courts do their evil bidding,” Perkins said on “Fox News Sunday.”

When the Court in 1973 “imposed abortion on the nation” it was to “resolve the issue,” Perkins said. “Forty-one years later, that issue is now a political issue in every election from president on down.”

Ted Olsen, a conservative lawyer who represented plaintiffs in Virginia, disagreed, saying federal courts were handling the issue “in an appropriate and proper way.”

Read more from this story HERE.