OK, Now What?
First, all the doomsayers and we’re-going-to-hell-in-a-pot-naysayers need to calm down.
No one can think clearly nor act with a successful strategically by being emotional — the left does that very well for everyone and we don’t need be aiding and abetting them in their Progressive ideology.
Supreme Court Rulings are just that – Rulings.
The rulings of SCOTUS have been abrogated (repealed) many times and we are not the first in wanting to do so — you can see a full listing of both overruled as well as abrogated SOCTUS decisions on Wikipedia.
As an additional resource, you can also download this PDF from the GPO (Government Printing Office) of SOCTUS decisions that were overruled by subsequent decisions (printed in 2014).
Not going to review any of them here, the above links will give you way more than enough fodder to keep calm as well as provide you some insights as well as direction into how the SCOTUS decisions were overruled.
Overview of the Supreme Court Justices
Let’s back up a bit by taking a look at who we have for Justices and how they arrived to the Supreme Court (the bold names are those who ruled Nay to the same-sex ruling) as well as provide an excerpt of those that ruled Nay to this opinion…
|#||Judge||State||Born||Active service||Appointed by|
|Bush, G. H. W.|
|107||Ruth Bader Ginsburg||NY||1933||1993–present
|109||John G. Roberts†||MD||1955||2005–present
|Bush, G. W.|
|Bush, G. W.|
Excerpts of Justices Voting Nay
Chief Justice John Robert
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Justice Antonin Scalia
It is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. 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. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
Justice Clarence Thomas
The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
Justice Samuel Alito
The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning. To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” … And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.
Incorrect Beliefs Create Incorrect Arguments
In Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s oral argument was this:
“We don’t live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy.”
Her oral argument on this point is entirely incorrect and I will explain why I believe so in a moment.
Her statement is also indicative of how false beliefs and pretenses of the 5 Justices voting in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage at the federal level can lead to incorrect rulings.
My evidence is this…
Of the 4 governing cornerstones, if you will permit to call the such, to our country are:
The Declaration of Independence
The U.S. Constitution
every U.S. State Constitution
Our Pledge of Allegiance
And I’ll throw in our national anthem as well
NONE of the above have the word democracy in them.
Our founding fathers were adamantly against any form of democracy due to its definition: pure mob rule wins (50% +1) and is unchangeable.
Anyone can find just how adamant our founding fathers were about a democracy by going to archives.org and read the original source documents written by their own hands during the time they were constructing our Constitution (do your own homework, you will learn and retain more that way 🙂 ).
Democracy means any one person can not challenge the laws that have been passed.
This is the very important trait of democracy many fail to learn, even Supreme Court Justices as evidenced by Kagan’s ignorant remarks (ignorant meaning you don’t know but are capable of learning – I am assuming Kagan can learn).
What we are is a Constitutional Republic — with a Democratic process.
A far cry from any form of Democracy.
Even Benjamin Franklin called our government a republic when questioned by a women outside of Independence Hall.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy — consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors.
The answer was provided immediately.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
A republic is governed not by a majority but by laws of which any ONE person can challenge.
THAT one difference is a huge difference as in a Democracy no one can challenge the majority.
A government process does necessarily define the nature of any sovereignty, yet how many keep embracing this fallacy?
When challenged they fall back on anything but testing that belief.
That is not validation nor conviction, that is defensiveness — plain and simple.
The Supreme Court may have ruled but our laws are setup for the people to rule, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court and definitely not the Executive Branch.
This is the difference that separates the Magna Carta from our Constitution.
When the people have had enough, and learn they still have the upper hand in any matter of our Congress, then they can and should take action to protect their liberty as well as their freedom.
Failing to do so will result in liberty lost — and totally irretrievable after which.
Only when the people understand and take this protective action against what the government is mandating against the will of the people is the government is in the position it should be — fearing the people and not ruling as politicians emotions dictate.
The Reality of It All
In states where same-sex marriage was permitted MOST gays DID NOT get married, despite all the hoopla the Main Stream Media was giving it all.
In the long run of it all,
and from the evidence so far,
same-sex lovers don’t care as much
about getting married
as they do about recognition.
However, even WITH the recognition,
does their anger disappear?
A good look at the headlines during the past decade give a resounding, “No!”
As much as they SAY they embrace their lifestyle and want rights to be married, as much as they want to be recognized, same-sex lovers remain for the most part angry at society in general.
There is only one reason anyone getting what they want remains angry…
no matter WHAT their lifestyle…
no matter WHAT their education…
no matter WHAT their station in life…
That reason is conviction.
Anyone without conviction…
can’t find satisfaction over the long run…
cannot find joy over the long term …
cannot find peace with themselves over the long term…
As a result, they become even more angrier and will be more in-your-face about what they are and what they want, no matter what and how much recognition they get.
Period (yet again).
They will not test their beliefs and will instead lash out at society for what they have done to themselves.
If We the People remain calm and do the right thing, then the only thing the 5 Supreme Court Justices did was to open up a Pandora’s Box that will only take even more pain, more damage to close.
knowledge is plainly
more stupid than ignorance…