Supreme Court Legislates Yet Again

En Garde In The Bunker

En Garde In The Bunker

Finally someone with some balls that tells it like it is (and that would be Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, coming up). The truth is that the Supreme Court is no longer as neutral as they should be (ie upholding the law as opposed to fashioning the law) and whether you believe it or not, the plain simple truth is that the Supreme Court is no longer following disciplined legal reasoning. They (perhaps four or five out of nine) continue to whittle away at our freedoms piece by piece, with their non-neutral decisions that are party-line based (which of course, they should not be). They should be entirely unbiased, based solely upon the Constitution. It is very difficult these days to believe in the “system” because of all the mass corruption spawned by an equally corrupt administration, spreading even to the Supreme Court. The Court is now rendering decisions based on ideology and not the rule of law and the Constitution. The Founding Fathers would be absolutely outraged at how the highest court in the land has been corrupted by biased political ideology. Troublesome, pathetic, and disgraceful.

Whether or not you agree with homosexual, Lesbian, or sodomy “marriage” (an oxymoron by any standards of morality) Judge Scalia is correct in his assessment that the Court is not meant to make policy. Rulings such as these erode dangerously the power that We The People and other branches of our government are supposed to have (and this is not even addressing the rights of the “Several States”). Our system of checks and balances is just about nonexistent when a ruling like this is accepted carte blanche. Majority rule cannot be thrown out the window without risking severe alienation of the majority, which generally leads to overall discontent and civil unrest; just exactly as the rogue fraud “president” and his handlers wish it to be.

The Black-Robed Executioners of iniquity..

The Black-Robed Executioners of iniquity..

Way back when, in the late 1960s/early 1970s, Americans responded overwhelmingly – OVERWHELMINGLY – against abortion on demand and the claptrap “right of choice” being thrown around by Planned Parenthood and others. That came to nought, when the SCOTUS took it upon themselves to make it law; against the overwhelming will of We The People. Think about this corrupt process which has taken place over the past several years. California for instance, voted 78% against the oxymoron “same sex marriage” twice – TWICE – and the will of We The People was turned over by a homosexually-biased judge on the district/circuit court system. 30 million citizens and their votes were dismissed in an instant. Now you deniers, how undemocratic is that? Heck, how unConstitutional is that? The overwhelming will of We The People turned over in a heartbeat. And the same happened in other states also. That is why the provision in the Constitution for the “will of the several States” be maintained – not thrown out the window as it has just been done these past 24 hours by the so-called highest court of the land. And don’t let us get started on how “SCOTUScare” was forced through the trenches…

I lost all respect for the Supreme Court when they gave a pass to Obamacare in the first challenge. I’m fine with universal healthcare, but to require everyone to buy insurance just because they exist and breathe in this country is beyond what any country should do. The reasoning used by the SCOTUS in that case was so dubious as to be a joke. That showed me that SCOTUS no longer decides cases based on the Constitution – they – (especially Roberts) just makes it up as he/they go. This isn’t about being for or against anything. It’s about the Constitutional role and function of SCOTUS, which they have deviated from so far that there is no longer a good reason for it to exist. PERIOD!

Judge Scalia as reported in The Hill …

Antonin Scalia...Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“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,” he writes.

“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 blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“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,” he writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language.

It’s the second day in a row that Scalia has blasted the majority’s opinion. On Thursday, he accused the court of creating “SCOTUScare” with a ruling that said the federal government could provide ObamaCare subsidies to consumers on a federal exchange.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that decision and was at the end of Scalia’s criticism, but on Friday they were on the same side.

Scalia wrote his own dissent even though he wrote that he agrees with everything that Roberts wrote in his own dissenting opinion, in order to “call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.”

Scalia admits that the societal outcome of the decision isn’t particularly important to him.

“The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can afford them favorable civil consequences,” he writes.

There's a shaking going on...

There’s a shaking going on…

But he wrote that he views the opinion as an overreach by the court, and chides the justices as “hardly a cross-section of America.”

He notes that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts, and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, religions that make up significant chunks of the American population.

“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,” he writes.