The Sickness That Is Democratic

Supreme Court Changed Its Position On "Marriage". Why Would They Do That?

AMERICA 'PUNKED' ON 'GAY MARRIAGE'

Supreme Court had to ignore its own words to reach conclusion

Published: 11 hours ago

• image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
  
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     263

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/SUPREME-COURT.jpg

A well-known pastor says America was “punked” on homosexual “marriage,” and he is trying to rally resistance to the Supreme Court with what he believes is a “smoking gun.”

Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning: Understanding the Trumpet Days of Revelation,” argues the Supreme Court ruled only two years ago the right to define marriage belonged exclusively to the states.

Then suddenly this year the justices found that contention was wrong – that the states did not have that right. Instead, the justices ruled 5-4 that the federal government has the right to redefine marriage – even to the point of throwing out the votes of millions of Americans.

Gallups says this “nefarious” legal reasoning opens the door for legislative action by the Republican-controlled Congress.

He said it was the case of United States v. Windsor in 2013 that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.

There the issue was that the federal law provided that marriage was between a man and a woman, but in New York state, there was a demand to include same-sex duos in that designation. Thus, the Supreme Court threw out the federal law.

It found “the responsibility of the states for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the state’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people.”

But now, Gallups notes, the Supreme Court is saying in 2015′s Obergefell v. Hodges case that homosexuals have an inherent “right” to marry and the state does not have the right to determine “domestic relations.”

Gallups says he finds it odd these same justices apparently didn’t notice this only two years ago.

Gallups, a former law enforcement officer, told WND, “The U.S. v. Windsor case is evidence to many who are examining the redefinition of marriage in America that there is a potentially nefarious agenda afoot with this entire issue. How can it be that the same five justices, who ruled against DOMA on the basis that the definition of ‘domestic relations’ belonged to the states alone, could just two years later could completely reverse their stance and with the gay marriage ruling declare that the definition of marriage was entirely a federal matter? In a sane world – it cannot be.

“These five justices declared in the DOMA ruling that to take the definition of marriage out of the states’ hands would be a ‘federal intrusion on state power’ and that it would be, ‘a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.’”

He said, “The matter is clear. The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, in the words of SCOTUS itself, was unconstitutional and therefore – illegal.”

Some legal experts agree the Supreme Court is directly contradicting its reasoning from the relatively recent time frame of only two years ago.

Douglas Wardlow, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told WND the court’s recent imposition of “gay marriage” is “fundamentally lawless, not based on sound reasoning and isn’t good jurisprudence.”

Wardlow, who possesses a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the bar of the District of Columbia and Minnesota, argues the court was motivated by “the end they wanted to reach and not by sound reasoning.”

He observes, “The reasoning in the Obergefell decision says the court can determine new standards of liberty to overturn precedent and legal restrictions.”

The court’s decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, boasts, “Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”

Wardlow argues Obergefell was grounded in the supposed constitutional right to express one’s identity and be granted a sense of dignity.

“Apparently, the court is the body that can define what forms of identity are protected by Constitution,” he said.

But Wardlow warns the decision goes beyond even just redefining a core institution like marriage. Observing how easily the court was able to contradict its own reasoning in the two years from United States v. Windsor to Obergefell v. Hodges, Wardlow says the court has done nothing less than redefine liberty itself and undermine the rule of law.

“Liberty is now defined as the expression of identity, instead of liberty meaning freedom from forms of government control. Fundamental liberties are no longer defined by history or the traditions of the nation but are free floating concepts, concepts that the court can assess for itself,” he said.

Wardlow says such an approach to jurisprudence could prove dangerous.

“Just think of a fundamental right and the Supreme Court could expand it, redefine it, or shrink it. The reasoning of the decision fundamentally undermines the rule of law because rule of law depends on constancy of the law. Now, it becomes difficult for people to plan their behavior and you move toward a lawless state.”

Paul Kengor, a professor and author of “Takedown: How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” argues Kennedy’s “commitment to a relativistic, individualistic view of everything from marriage to life to existence to meaning itself ultimately won out.”

Kengor says Kennedy’s legal reasoning has put almost everything in the law up for grabs, “and that’s no exaggeration.”

“Really, if you want to understand what Justice Kennedy did in the gay-marriage decision, simply look at his ‘reasoning’ in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that reaffirmed Roe in all 50 states. Kennedy wrote then: ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”

He said, “That explains Kennedy’s willingness to redefine marriage. If Anthony Kennedy interprets liberty in America to mean that every American possesses his or her own right to define one’s own singular concept of existence, meaning, the universe, and life itself, then why can’t Americans come up with their definitions of marriage? Really, redefining marriage is small potatoes after all that.”

Wardlow says the rationale used to impose homosexual marriage “opens the door to a lot of different problems” because now the law seems to state, “whatever you want the world to look like, you can make it look like that.”

Bemoaning how “a concept ultimately destructive of social order” is now at the heart of constitutional law, Wardlow says the only way the decision is likely to be reversed is with better justices.

He argues, “It’s even difficult to make arguments to federal courts when the decision isn’t based on logic or reason or precedent, which are things lawyers traditionally use. It appears the governing standards are lawless themselves.”

Yet Gallups argues the answer is “reining in a runaway federal court through congressional action.”

He blasts Republican presidential candidates who are unwilling to take action to defend traditional marriage.

“What is particularly disturbing to many, is that the vast majority of the so-called ‘conservative’ Republican candidates running for president have declared that they would not seek a constitutional amendment to properly define marriage and nullify the SCOTUS decision. Their paraphrased consensus declaration is, ‘The law is the law. SCOTUS has settled the issue.’

“Hogwash! The SCOTUS also ‘settled’ the issue in Dred Scott, and it also ‘settled’ the issue in Roe v. Wade. Now, years later, we know the horrific consequences of both of these ‘settled law’ cases. To make matters worse, it seems that Congress is not going to intervene in this legal travesty as well. One has to wonder if Congress even knows about the legally inconsistent SCOTUS rulings that took place only two years apart. Where is the mainstream media on this travesty of constitutional law?”

See Gallups’ report:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/america-punked-on-gay-marriage/#SPBXERvXBWm0TAMJ.99Sup

Scalia Maintains Supreme Court Is Now In The Business Of Keeping ObamaCrapCare

Justice Scalia Pinned The PERFECT Name on Obamacare to Describe The Travesty of The SCOTUS Ruling

---

Conservatives and Constitutionalists were dealt a severe blow by the recent Obamacare ruling from the Supreme Court that seemed to overturn principled jurisprudence for the sake of pragmatism and emotionalism.

But the best summing up of exactly what happened came from Justice Scalia who penned the scathing dissent against the ruling:

“The argument that the phrase ‘established by the State’ would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia lambasted the Obama administration for what he called the “somersaults of statutory interpretation” in the healthcare law.

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” wrote Scalia, in an unsubtle reference to an earlier decision written by Roberts that declared constitutional the law’s mandate that people buy insurance.

Fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Scalia’s dissent.

BOOM! That’s perfect – in it’s overreaching judicially to make sure the legislation stayed in power, the Supreme Court has taken over from Obama as the main sponsor of the bill. They have abrogated their responsibility to uphold the Constitution and have put Obama’s word far above it like an idol that has to be revered.

Welcome to America under SCOTUScare.

Political News

AAN Political Intel Report: Mississippi,

 Illinois, Virginia

• Mar 31, 2015
 
• Source: American Action News
 
• by: Jim Ellis

MS-1

Candidate filing closed last Friday for the MS-1 

 special election, which Rep. Alan Nunnelee’s (R) 

death made necessary.  Twelve Republicans and 

one Democrat will be on the May 12th jungle primary

 ballot.  With so many candidates qualifying, a June 

2nd run-off between the top two finishers is a virtual 

certainty, since it would be very difficult for any 

one contender to attract a majority of the vote.

One prominent name missing from the list is former Rep. Travis Childers (D), who won the last 

special election held here, and then claimed a full term later in 2008.  He was unseated in 2010,

 and then lost to Sen. Thad Cochran (R) last November in a statewide general election contest.  

Though it is always possible lightning could have again struck for him in a special election, the

 chance of Mr. Childers holding this strongly Republican northern Mississippi district for a long 

duration is an unlikely one, at best.  Hence, his decision not to run.

The lone Democrat running is former Jackson mayoral aide Walter Zinn.  His prospects of

 qualifying for the run-off are somewhat realistic because the Republican vote will be split literally

 a dozen ways.  His prospects are thin, however, to capture the seat in the run-off.  Aside from 

being a prohibitive underdog against a Republican in a one-on-one battle, Zinn’s Jackson

 political base is not even in the 1st District.

The state transportation commissioner, two local prosecutors, a state legislator, an ex-Mayor, 

and a former Jackson City Councilman – having the same geographical problem as Zinn – 

comprise the major part of the Republican field.

Illinois Senate

As predicted last week, Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL-8) did officially announce her 

Senatorial candidacy yesterday, but she may not have a clean primary.  Three other 

US House delegation members earlier expressed interest in running statewide, and

 two of them are still not ruling out entering the Democratic primary.  The winner faces 

first-term Sen. Mark Kirk (R), who may well be the most vulnerable Republican standing

 for re-election in 2016.

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL-17) has virtually taken herself out of consideration, saying she 

entering the Senatorial contest is “highly unlikely.”  Rep. Bustos came one step short of

 endorsing Ms. Duckworth.

Reps. Robin Kelly (D-IL-2) and Bill Foster (D-IL-11), however, did not commit to stepping

 aside, with both leaving the door very much open for their potential candidacies.

In the end, it will probably be Rep. Duckworth standing alone in her quest for the nomination,

 but it will be several interesting weeks before these two federal officeholders, and maybe

 others, finally agree to step aside.

Virginia Redistricting

The Commonwealth of Virginia is one of three states that were waiting for the Supreme 

Court to rule on the Alabama state legislative case, a decision made public last week.  

It became clear even before making the final ruling that the high court was using the 

Alabama case as a benchmark for issuing a directive about minority congressional districts.  

The three states, Florida and Texas in addition to Virginia, had previously declared certain 

congressional districts as unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court took action in relation to 

the Virginia case yesterday and we may see redrawing action coming much sooner, 

rather than later.

Instead of hearing the Virginia case, since they returned the Alabama case back to that

 state last week, the high court sent back the Virginia map to the jurisdictional three-judge

 panel and told them to reconsider their previous ruling based upon the new Alabama

 decision.  SCOTUS’ latest action appears to further weaken the Voting Rights Act, 

which means minority retrogression could practically become less important if minority 

voters have a stronger say in a greater number of districts.

If the special judicial panel responds, and sends the map to the legislature for a redraw

 or manipulates the lines themselves, several districts in addition to Rep. Bobby Scott’s 

(D-VA-3) CD will be affected.  Mr. Scott’s district, declared unconstitutional last year, 

stretches from Richmond into the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area.  It is this latter region

 where we will see the most significant boundary changes.  The members most likely

 affected, in addition to Rep. Scott, are Reps. Scott Rigell (R-VA-2) and Randy Forbes

 (R-VA-4). Source: American Action News

- See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/aan-political-intel-report-
mississippi-illinois-virginia#sthash.ywexfbGg.dpuf