Okay, it’s official now. All the very important and clever elites in our politics and culture are telling us that the recent Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage is now “the law of the land.”
Even alleged conservative commentator George Will is on board, so that must mean the argument is settled. America’s ruling class has spoken and are saying, in so many words, “Shut up and sit down. Do what you’re told.”
Except, just like Roe v. Wade in 1973, where the Supreme Court decided out of thin air for all fifty states that abortion was a fundamental right, the decision decided nothing and the battle continues. It was an overreach of the Constitutional limits of the High Court’s authority, which is defined as being one of three branches of government – not the royal branch.
This decision, too, shall not end here.
Which brings us to Mrs. Kim Davis, the elected, Democrat Clerk of Rowen County, Kentucky who is now sitting in jail for refusing to issue any marriage licenses to any couples, regardless of orientation, since four radical leftist Justices and one wobbly wheel of a man, Justice Anthony Kennedy, explained to 320 million Americans how the cow ate the cabbage.
Mr. Will, who makes his living giving speeches to fat cat associations, groups and businesses – and is reportedly paid over $50,000 per speech to exercise his First Amendment right to express squishy, not altogether cogent thoughts – is now saying that Mrs. Davis is comparable to George Wallace and Orval Faubus, both infamous racist Democrat governors of yesteryear, for exercising her First Amendment rights! Really?
Let’s take a quick stroll down “Post-Constitutional Lane” and see if we can summarize the last seven, agonizing, and befuddling years.
The President of the United States has been defying, defining and ignoring both the Constitutional limits of his power and his express responsibility to enforce the laws of the land since his first day in office. No president has deserved to be impeached more than this man. Yet, the ruling class actually thinks it’s pretty cool; he is merely doing things they all want to do anyway, and they are envious of how he brazenly disregards the law. Even when Republicans took over the House in 2010, and the House and the Senate in 2014, nothing changes. They collectively won’t stand up to the President, because they’re secretly okay with what he’s doing.
The Court, for its part, now takes upon itself the role of sole arbitrator of every issue in the land – regardless of its defined power to do so. In essence, the Court has become the imprimatur of the ruling class. So we end up with the High Court not once, but twice, coming up with Hail Mary passes to save the clearly unconstitutional Obamacare by redefining words that are clearly defined. In another decision that could be even more destructive to the nation, the wobbly wheel, Kennedy, has decided – alone -that you’re a racist if you live in the suburbs regardless of whether you discriminate against anyone or not.
So, actually, the same sex marriage decision is simply a continuation of the court decreeing a new vision for America, using a whim, cross-dressing as a constitutional principle. And on and on it goes.
So, after seven years the pattern seems pretty clear. The government and the elite ruling class are going to do as they darn well please, and you’re going to like it. If, by chance, you apply the same logic to your actions as they do to theirs, then the full force of the “law” will be brought down upon you.
The ruling class has rights, the average citizen has obligations.
The battle for the First Amendment is now officially under way and it will be a mean, vicious fight and many of our fellow citizens will retire from the field of battle without a shot fired. But the outcome will determine how the next generation lives:
Can free speech, freedom of religion, and a free press remain sacrosanct, or shall they now be whittled away by a thousand cuts? How can an individual or a church body continue to call a perfectly legal relationship sinful? How can any single individual exercise his first amendment rights if they clip the fender of another person’s beliefs? How can the press, or public speech survive in this atmosphere?
Of course, the ruling class already has their answer – Mrs. Davis is merely the first of many examples to come. The question for everyone else is how much is the First Amendment worth fighting for?
I suppose this kind of long, fact-free screed is easier than actually thinking about this stuff. And I suppose that attacking George Will is a lot easier than dealing with all of the other conservatives who also don’t think much of Kim Davis and her supposed religious liberty claim even if they agree that Obergefell was wrongly decided. For example, Walter Olson at Cato: http://www.cato.org/blog/kim-davis-case and Kevin Williamson at NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423540/kim-davis-gay-marriage-prison
The system doesn’t work if minor functionaries like local clerks substitute their understanding of what God wants for the actual law.
What “law” did Kim not follow?
Gee, think real hard BIGron.
I’ll spare you: the court order directing her to grant marriage licenses.
Didn’t think you knew. Judges do not write laws. They make stupid interpretations based on depraved “viewpoints” apparently. Maybe you can direct me to the part of the Constitution that talks about marriage???
well, sir, if you think judges make stupid interpretations, then you should never involve yourself in any judicial action. nor should you follow any judicial decision.
I agree with Tommy:
“Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of
going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate.” –Thomas Jefferson
BIGron, court orders are law, as you’ll find out if you ever defy one (and as Davis has found out).
“The judges… are practicing on the Constitution by inferences, analogies, and
sophisms, as they would on an ordinary law. They do not seem aware that it is not even a Constitution formed by a single authority and subject to a single superintendence and control, but that it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance.” –Thomas Jefferson
Because Jefferson, not having been there for the writing of the Constitution, is clearly a completely authoritative source about it.
I wonder what Jimmy would say of a power hungry judiciary that allows “viewpoints” as opposed to the Constitution to dictate legislation from the bench. Perhaps you could expound upon what any of our Founding Fathers would say about an out of control judiciary. I think TYRANNY about sums it up my crazy, fussy friend.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary,
in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether
hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the
very definition of tyranny.” — James Madison
then sir, you are free to follow Mrs. Davis’ atty’s advice & defy a court order based on your “conscience”. Ask her lawyer in which court in this country is her “conscience” a defense.
Mayor Newsom defied an actual law, not a judicial decree, when he issued same-sex marriage licenses in San Fransisco in 2004. Funny, I bet you touted him as a hero. I can only assume you applauded slavery and the “Dred Scott” judicial decree, too. I suppose you will follow your judges no matter what their “viewpoint” is. Good for you. Fortunately, some can recognize tyranny for what is.
yes, I suppose I will follow my judge.
please be careful advising your clients to defy court orders.
Interesting to see how easy it is for some to relinquish their freedoms.
Under the Constitution, the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH writes Laws. Not the Court. THERE IS NO SUCH LAW. There is, however, an actual Legislature Law in Kentucky, which this clerk followed to the letter.
Caps lock won’t change the fact that court orders are binding law on the parties.
And what’s a “Legislature Law”? Do you mean a statute? Of course, statutes and state constitutional provisions can be unconstitutional, in which case they are not law at all.
Look at the audience that Giere’s writing to and his non-responsiveness towards any criticism.
Interesting the way that you “tap danced” around the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling. Couldn’t resist could you?
You write these articles pointing out problems, stirring up controversy. When do you write about how to fix these problems, when this country is headed in the direction that the majority demands?
The majority and big money are getting exactly what they want, or pay for. How are you, or anybody else, going to change that?
When two of the justices should have recused themselves from this decision, you know, the ones that had all ready defiled marriage by “joining” same-sex couples, why should any American follow what this court has done? We are living in a time to be bold in your convictions. Kim Davis is fearlessly answering the call and will certainly not be the last!
If every justice with a viewpoint had to recuse themselves, Scalia wouldn’t be deciding much either.
Kim Davis is doing nothing for the cause of religious liberty or opposing same-sex marriage in this country. And it’s very revealing that she is, in fact, standing alone.
If every justice followed the Constitution, none of us would have anything to worry about. Using an amendment written specifically to grant freed slaves the same rights as other Americans to redefine marriage is about as irrational as one can get. I’m sure the authors of the 14th Amendment would appreciate this misinterpretation the SCOTUS has endorsed since same sex marriage was so prevalent in the 1800s.
Having a viewpoint is quite different from actively championing a position:
“Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” provides that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The section also provides that a judge is disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”
It is “reasonable” to believe any justice performing same-sex marriages prior to hearing a case to redefine marriage lacks any “impartiality,” in my humble opinion.
I guess you missed the hundreds of protesters that have been cheering Kim on. BTW, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz are talking to Kim today. Mike says it best, the judiciary does not write laws and the Constitution says nothing about marriage. She is, in fact, not standing alone! Why do you condone the lawless behavior of the SCOTUS?
Hundreds of protesters! Wow!
The most Davis & her supporters will get is that during its 2016 Session, the legislature of Kentucky will amend the marriage laws to allow a clerk to take their name off licenses, substituting a deputy clerk or something like that. Quite the revolution there.
The battle is over. Move on. And find a better strategy — Kim Davis’s pointless resistance isn’t helping conservatives win hearts or make policy on same-sex marriage or anything else..
Not so “alone” after all, right? Good to see you can admit you are WRONG. Regardless, those actions will be a start in protecting an individual’s religious freedom. Odd that the 1st Amendment means so little to five of them SCOTUS knot heads. Just the beginning of the fight my crazy, disbelieving friend. Just keep watching!
Assume inaccurately whatever admissions make you feel better. Davis’s actions will be a start only in further ensuring the marginalization of conservatives and degrading the important right of religious freedom by associating it with an odious refusal by an unsympathetic minor functionary to serve the public equally in accordance with the law.
EDIT – See http://theweek.com/articles/575511/how-kim-davis-hurts-cause-religious-liberty : “Kim Davis is the case proponents of a narrower understanding of religious freedom would love to have conservatives press.”
Or it could be a start of a radical conservatism just as belligerent as the gaystapo crowd. You know what they say about squeaky wheels and all.
Oh, it is. Lots of eyes were opened this month! People that were disinterested, sat up and watched this bit of news. Now they’re banding together like never before.
And there it is. The AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment WAS abundantly clear about what the Amendment was to cover. And this travesty of justice weren’t it.
And Huckabee is going to do what exactly for her? Words are wind.
Supposedly there’s some other yahoo clerk biking across Kentucky in support of her. The point is, this isn’t the (massively unsuccessful) massive resistance of Virginia in the ’60s.
Yet, Kim is out of jail. It appears the judge was the one that blinked, my crazy, befuddled friend.
throw out judges that render decisions you find unreasonable or irrelevant or just downright wrong? disregard judicial decisions?
so everyone paying child support can just quit, right? so all child custody & adoption is in doubt? every evidentiary decision has to be litigated & then you wouldn’t agree with the decision anyway.
is this how you advise your clients?
She is out because the judge lost his nerve. Just the beginning my crazy, skeptical friend.
If they are as UNCONSTITUTIONAL as this one, yes,
She’s out because the judge is reasonable. Not all judges are.
But if Davis really wants to be in jail (as she’s shown every sign of wanting so far), I’m sure she can find a way to get back there by interfering with her deputies doing their jobs.
When judicial review works to your benefit and beliefs, you don’t seem to have a problem with it. Judicial review has seemed to work just fine overall in the past 200 years since it was established. Cases like “Loving v. Virginia” as an example.
Your appeal to emotion argument fails to sway me here. It’s a shame that you’re not willing to do rebuttals to people who disagree with your viewpoint.
Bearing Drift wrote on this same subject and they said if you oppose gay marriage you are s.o.l. in so many words…many many words about how the Supreme Court is supreme and you have to do what they say. Those guys are about as conservative as Barack Obama.
Ive been yelling this from the rooftops. My frustrations with some republicans which have already thrown their hands up and latched themselves to the teat of the establishment are already apparent.
it is not about your political ideology: conservative or liberal. It is whether you believe in the US Constitution.
Do you believe in the Constitution? You know, the one where the TENTH AMENDMENT retains all rights given to the States? Because this doesn’t trump State’s Rights. It was an OPINION. There’s not even a Law to back it up. Ms. Davis is obligated under Kentucky Law to uphold that State’s Legislated Law. There is no Federal Law. Because the Constitution assigns different duties to the SEPERATE POWERS of the Government. And the SCOTUS didn’t get the power to WRITE laws. That’s clearly the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. That’s Congress, if I have to break it down for you.