Supreme Court rogue in extremis … Now that’s something radical for y’all. How about we push for a six-year probationary period for newly appointed judges/justices, whereby their true intent to the law and the Constitution can be clearly determined before they achieve their deification? If found lacking in Constitutional law and understanding, then said judge/justice could be removed. Either that or they are placed under a four year term, which can be renewed at will.
I know; I’m dreaming.
The Supreme Court vastly altered US culture when it ordered prayer and bible reading out of the public schools. In practical terms, that removed the concept of God, and traditional religious-based morality, out of the schools.
Such a massive cultural change was brought about by a tiny squad of men in black robes. And ever since then, the court has tried to create by fiat whatever version of what it considers the perfect society. The desires of the populace (constitutional republic, ie) seem to count not at all.
Congress needs to restrain the effects of the court’s decisions by mandating that they apply only to the specific case brought before them; and establish no precedents in law. Congress after all, has the constitutional power to do this.
Otherwise, our culture will be distorted again and again, while we remain the hapless victims.
The issue would then become one of who decides whether these judges/justices are upholding the Constitution and the laws of the land. Certainly, we couldn’t trust Congress to determine such things considering that they’ve proven themselves over and over and over again, to be nothing more than paid political cronies. We couldn’t leave it to the voters either, as it would then become nothing more nor less than a popularity contest; plus, throw in voter fraud, and nothing would be accomplished.
Writing for a Supreme Court majority in Griswold v. Connecticut back in 1965, Justice William O. Douglas reasoned “that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”
Subsequently, the Supreme Court has located the Leftist agenda smack dab in the dark corners of emanated penumbras from specific constitutional rights; there for instance, lurked a ‘right’ to sodomy, a ‘right’ to abortion and a ‘right’ deriving from the plasticity of gender identification – all allegedly traceable to the Founding Fathers. Who knew?
Chief Justice John Roberts, the tireless defender of ‘Kenyan-care,’ was half-right when he insisted that there are no ‘Trump’ judges or ‘Obama’ judges in answer to those who decry the partisanship of the federal bench. No, with John Roberts and the Supremes, absurdity has canceled partisanship.
Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMag: ‘Supremes Redefine Sex, Threatens Freedom of Religion’…
And reality itself is under siege in the minds of the men and women who run the country.
A Southern Democrat segregationist inserted “sex” into the Civil Rights Act as a poison pill.
Rep. Howard Smith had introduced what eventually became Title VII, with a letter which asked, that since there were more women than men, “why the Creator would set up such an imbalance of spinsters, shutting off the ‘right’ of every female to have a husband of her own, is, of course, known only to nature… but I am sure you will agree that this is a grave injustice to womankind and something the Congress and President Johnson should take immediate steps to correct… especially in this election year.”
To add to the already hilarious joke, six Supreme Court justices just decided that what the Southern racist really meant by “sex” was gay and transgender because in Washington D.C. no joke is too funny that it can’t be taken seriously as a basis for judicial activism and lawsuits.
It’s still a joke, but we’re not allowed to laugh anymore.
“Few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons. But legislative history has no bearing here,” Gorsuch writes.
If the actual purpose and meaning of the law doesn’t matter, then what does?
What Gorsuch, Roberts and his leftist colleagues believe matters. Nothing else. Rights are as imaginary as gender and legislative history gets in the way of legislating from the bench.[-]
[+] … Bill Clinton had famously debated the meaning of “is” and of sex. Gorsuch and his five accomplices claim that they’ve settled the question of “sex”. Now comes the battle over defining “religion” and the “free exercise” of it. Are teachers in religious schools exempted? What about bookkeepers? Civil rights has long since become a zero sum game with winners and losers.
The winners advance to the next stage of suing people and the losers retreat to defending them.
Religious organizations will be forced to defend the religious role of teachers. And, once that battle is lost, the religious role of rabbis and ministers. Then they’ll be told to ‘bake the cake’.[-]
Full link to ignominy provided below…
Virtually all of those who are celebrating this Supreme Court decision have long turned their backs to the God of the Bible and worship government instead. What they don’t realize is that, based on their world-view of no God, there is no God to grant rights. It is now government that grants rights.
And what the government gives, it can take away; whatever ‘rights’ government grants to people, it will do so only for self-serving purposes.
This ruling will have consequences far beyond the immediate threat to churches’ hiring practices. Anyone, anywhere who expresses the slightest reservation about Marxist gender ideology will eventually be sanctioned in one way or another. No one will escape the Marxist mob on this one.
The evil one is running rampant and we have to deal with it somehow, or we lose everything. And may God save us from ‘conservative’ Justices like Neil Gorsuch.
And on that note, time for today’s MAGA Pill – Warrior-president Donald J. Trump – MAGA! KAG!
Daniel Greenfield, FrontPageMag: Supremes Redefine Sex, Threatens Freedom of Religion