Skip to main content

Arguments indicate SCOTUS is prepared to ignore the law and redefine marriage according to its own preferences


The members of Supreme Court heard arguments and debated gay "marriage" among themselves yesterday. All that remains is for the decision to be rendered.

Chief Justice Roberts said that he had been unable to find a single legal definition of marriage written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. Chief Justice Roberts said he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one such definition written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed," he told the pro-redefinition justices, "that definition will not be operable. You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.” The Chief Justice also warned against curtailing an ongoing debate in a culture still of two minds about the matter.

Justice Anthony Kennedy- a moderate liberal often misidentified by liberal observers of the Court as a conservative of some kind- thinks that maybe that's what needs to be done. At least he's honest.

Kennedy recognized that the definition cited by the Chief Justice has been operative for thousands of years. “It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better," Kennedy said. Yet for the most part his arguments seemed to indicate that he's prepared to do exactly that- even while recognizing that that is exactly what he is doing.

The Supreme Court once again seems on the cusp of ignoring absolutely all legal precedent and ruling, not on the basis of the law, but on the basis of what a majority thinks the law ought to be. And that is contrary to the Constitution, and to the rule of law itself. The Founders did not create the Court to be a standing, unelected constitutional convention.

If- as now appears likely- the Court rules 5-4 to outlaw the restriction of marriage to one man and one woman, our descent from democracy into kritarchy will be complete. We will join Canada as a former democracy now ruled by judges.

HT: Drudge

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…