Taney's Children
(by R.P.Edwards)
Black robed usurpers
Acting as kings
Mocking the Deity
Taunting Him..."Bring!"
Taney's descendants
Forgetting their place
Rewriting what's written
And reaping...disgrace
I spent some time at the local abortion clinic this morning. I stood on the sidewalk while the women inside waited to have their offspring legally...murdered. And why does this barbarity occur in these "under God" United States? Because of The Supreme Court.
I, who am quickly approaching my sixth decade of life, was one of the first introduced to public education without the positive influence of the Ten Commandments and prayer. Seeing the deterioration of the classroom over the years one may ask who was foolish enough to remove these stabilizing elements? Answer: The Supreme Court.
And now, legislating from the bench once again, these mere humans have, by redefining marriage, overruled God Himself. What impudence! What gall! What arrogance to shred the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold while at the same time sticking their collective fingers in the deity's eye. The word "fools" comes to mind, but this does not apply to the black robed usurpers, but to "We the People" if we do nothing to rein in the apostate court.
Following are a few excerpts from the dissenters.
Chief Justice Roberts:
…But this Court is not a
legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the
Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…
...The majority’s decision is an act of
will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution
or this Court’s precedent...
...Allowing unelected federal judges to
select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state
laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the
judicial role...
...Those who founded our country would
not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked
their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They
would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to
unaccountable and unelected judges...
...If you are among the many
Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage,
by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.
Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate
the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had
nothing to do with it.I respectfully dissent.
Justice Scalia:
...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...
...But
the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law...
...This is a naked judicial claim to
legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with
our system of government...
...A system of government that makes the
People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to
be called a democracy...
...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...
...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...
...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...
Justice Thomas:
The Court’s decision today is at
odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation
was built...
...
By straying from the text of the
Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the
People from whom they derive their authority...
`
...Aside from undermining the political
processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious
liberty our Nation has long sought to protect...
...Had the majority allowed the
definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the
People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating
from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead,
the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous
consequences for religious liberty...
...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
shieldedfrom—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.
Justice Alito:
Until the federal courts intervened, the
American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should
recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what
States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers
that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to
be decided by the people of each State…
...It is far beyond the outer reaches of this
Court’s authority to say that a State may not adhere to the understanding of
marriage that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others with
similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of countries and cultures
all around the globe...
...Today’s decision usurps the constitutional
right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional
understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important
consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent
to the new orthodoxy...
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.
*Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
****
.
