Some of us have been intellectually honest and consistent in our opposition to the usurpation of power by the president and the loss of individual liberty. But as [Weird Dave] at AoS HQ points out. if you were okay with gay marriage being imposed by judicial fiat, you have forfeited your right to complain about Amnesty imposed by Executive fiat.
When you bitched and ranted about presidential usurpation of legislative prerogatives, however, I find it hard to take you seriously. It’s not that you’re wrong, gods no, it’s just that I remember you crowing about judicial usurpation of legislative authority on the issue of gay marriage. “We’ve got 35 states now!” you said triumphantly a few weeks back when the latest ruling was issued.
It’s all about the loss of liberty; which a lot of people are okay with so long as the Oligarchy is imposing those things that they want to see imposed. The bad news is, once you have summoned this demon, you won’t be able to control it.
If blind pursuit of short term goals achieves them at the cost of destroying the larger societal structure, and we fall into totalitarianism, what then? Can you name one totalitarian regime in history that has been kind to minorities or homosexuals? I can’t think of any. Can you?
Can you name one totalitarian regime in history that has been kind to minorities or homosexuals? I can’t think of any. Can you?
and yet they support the groups so often that would oh, hang them (like the gay leftoids who support “palestinians” against Israel). Anything that fights the power of the traditional USA and her allies is just fine by them … eggs, omlettes and what … until it is them becoming Humpty Dumpty
Also the false argument about Reagan’s Amnesty that is used by supporters (who are seemingly smaller than 0bama had expected). It wasn’t fiat, and, well, it is why many are against amnesty now.
The pride of the left who just had a hagiography, Caesar Chavez, was against the Reagan Amnesty and had to be talked into supporting it. Then afterwards reverted to his previous stance as his fears were proven correct and was forever convinced it was a bad move.
They also deny that allowing this means the next President (who hopefully will be someone well “right” of our last two Repub candidates) can do as he pleases on things they do so love … How about an EO that all left leaning orgs have their Tax Exemption revoked. Or maybe one that shuts down all “Green Energy” permits (there is good reason in many cases to actually do that and shut the bird killers down).
Or as was stated in the play, A Man For All Seasons:
“What would you do, ignore the law to get to the Devil?”
“Yes! I would break every law in England to do that!”
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, all the laws being flat? This land is laid thick with laws, from coast to coat–Man’s laws, not God’s–and if you knock those down, and you’re just the one to do it, do you really think you could stand in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
That’s a great quote, Craig. My engineering and medical education was a bit lacking in the Liberal Arts, I wish I was more familiar with such works (though I try to play catch up).
Regarding V’s point,
It’s not so much about “Judicial usurpation” per se, as Exectuive. The role of the Judiciary, activists aside, includes oversight of the Legislature. You can disagree with the job they’re doing, but it’s still their job.
Case in point: Roughly five years ago, some of my more liberal friends asked me what I thought about Lord Barack’s edict to not enforce nor defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
Not knowing too much about the state of the Act, I looked it up and noted a few things:
1) Reading the DoMA, it was immediately clear that the entire law as written in plain English violated, at a minimum, the First Amendment, and that any legitimate court should have little difficulty in striking it down en toto.
2) Several such cases were at the time progressing through the Judicial system
3) Good law, bad law, silly law, disastrous law be damned, it’s the President’s job, as Executor in chief, to enforce the law until such a time that the Legislature revokes or revises it, or the Judiciary overturns it.
At that time, I was willing to cut him a little slack, strictly because of point #2 making it dubious to spend resources on something about to be overturned, but warned that this behavior was well outside the scope of his powers.
Ten years ago I was mildly pleased at the idea of smoke-free nightclubs in NYC, but feared that it would rapidly degenerate into the fascism of today’s Soda bans, Baby Formula bans, et al. I’m not happy about being right about those early days of our Chief Executive and Overlord.
Celebrities Read Mean Tweets #8 – Jimmy Kimmel Live
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2014/11/celebrities-read-mean-tweets-8-jimmy.html
The difference is that the judiciary is acting within its constitutional authority when it makes a ruling for (or against) gay marriage.
The President is NOT acting within his scope of authority AT ALL when he signs an EO like a king.
While I have a nuanced stance on same-sex marriage/civil unions (see previous discussions of cultural implications, religious liberty, motivation of advocates, etc.), I strongly object to federal judges changing state laws and state constitutions with single proclamations. While Obama’s use of executive orders in lieu of Congress is bad, I think the judges are worse. What citizen ever cast a ballot for a federal judge? Where do federal judges get their authority from? Is the appointment of judges consistent with the idea of government of, by, and for the people?
Sean:
The Constitution explicitly states that any case arising under the US Constitution is to be decided by the federal court system. Considering the gay marriage cases are based on a constitutional issue, it’s for the courts to decide.
Plus, the courts act as a sort of “check and balance” against the other 2 branches of government. The judiciary actually happens to be my favorite branch because it keeps the other 2 branches in line.
And who keeps the judiciary in line? Where is the check and balance on their power?
There is none; that’s why it’s the liberals’ favorite branch of Government.
@ Paul: In theory, anyways. When members of the judiciary decide that it’s their Marx-bestowed mission to rubber-stamp the agendas of the other two branches, the whole checks-and-balances thing breaks down.
I thought it was odd that for a while gays could be married in NYC but Nanny Bloomers jackboots would come down on them if they shared a 20oz soda, smoked a cig, or had a salt shaker in their restaurant. Bloomers was even going after people that had dinner parties when his soda ban got shot down for affecting blacks the most.
We couldn’t even get gay marriage passed on the ballot in CA. The leftists are starting to take off their mask at the same time they are poking a sleeping wolverine with a stick.
40,000 pages of new fast & furious documents show how O-Hole has been manipulating the media.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/11/22/sharyl-attkisson-reveals-obama-administration-methods-to-manipulate-media/#more-92650
@ Steve: Leftist gays are so obsessed with getting whatever twisted revenge that it is that they want on the boogieman that they have constructed in their mind, they will pay any price to get it.
Paul: I could see why the judiciary wing should get involved if a state presumed to say: “We’re going to arrest any minister who officiates at same-sex marriages, and/or lock up same-sex pairs who profess to be married.”
But when it’s merely a matter of states saying “we’re going to ignore these same-sex unions and not recognize them as legally binding,” what is the compelling need for the judiciary to “check and balance” the other two wings?
Anyway, g’nite, all… I’ve got Turkey Day recipe ideas that need some spearminting…
>>But when it’s merely a matter of states saying “we’re going to ignore these same-sex unions and not recognize them as legally binding,” what is the compelling need for the judiciary to “check and balance” the other two wings?<<
Because of the 14th Amendment. When states deny equality or freedom via state governmental means, they are just as in dire need of checking and balancing as much as if it was Obama, Pelosi, or Reid doing the infringing.
Because of the 14th Amendment. When states deny equality or freedom via state governmental means, they are just as in dire need of checking and balancing as much as if it was Obama, Pelosi, or Reid doing the infringing.
Comment by Paul — November 22, 2014 @ 10:14 pm – November 22, 2014
Sure, Paul.
Now, since you insist the Fourteenth Amendment strikes down the power of the states to regulate marriage, of course you will be intellectually consistent and demand that laws against plural, incestuous, bestial, and other marriages be struck down.
Because, Paul, if you actually read the Fourteenth Amendment, you’ll notice it guarantees “equal protection” to ALL, with nothing in there limiting it by age, blood relationship, number, species, or anything else.
So your logic is failed, as is any that depends on the Fourteenth Amendment. You would be more intelligent to state that marriage is not an enumerated right and that the fact that Loving cited the Fourteenth Amendment had more to do with prohibitions on restriction by race, which is what the Fourteenth and its counterpart Amendments were designed to do.
But of course, you wanted gay-sex marriage, so you made up stupid precedent and shrieked that anyone who disagreed with you was a homophobic bigot. And now, even more hilariously, bigots like yourself who shrieked about the Fourteenth Amendment are now insisting that the First Amendment does not apply and that you can force gay-sex marriages on churches.
I have a simple answer, Paul. Gay-sex marriage is unconstitutional because its application by bigot gays like yourself clearly violates the First Amendment.
NDT, rather inelegantly, beat me to my comment. You can’t have it both ways. Either the people have the right to define which contracts the government recognizes, or they don’t. If the later, then “marriage is a right” means you argue for incestuous or child marriage.
If the former, then you concede that SSM is a legislative matter.
More to the point, in deciding Constitutional issues, it is extremely important to take into account the intent of those who originated it. In the case of the 14th amendment, I defy anyone to claim that the authors intended to grant marriage to same sex couples.