How do you juxtapose the argument that we should respect the pronouncements of courts, with their rulings which make "gay marriage" legal?
Does this ruling engender in you more respect for the existing legal system or less? Or is their no change in your opinion of it?
On the same day that the Supreme Court refused to review homosexual marriage appeals they also refused to review two more Obama eligibility appeals, Mc Innish v Bennett, the Alabama ballot challenge and Rudy v Lee, the attempt to be granted standing by demonstrating direct financial injury due to an ineligible president signing patent legislation into law.
As for the homosexual marriage non-ruling, I don’t judge the entire American judicial system on the basis of one denial of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Over the course of decades and after reviewing rulings in hundreds of appeals, I find that I am in agreement with the high court about half the time and I am in disagreement with the court the other half. That’s a marginally better agreement percentage from me than the bills passed and policies implemented by the other two branches of the federal government.
Your question is akin to judging the presidency of Ronald Reagan solely on the basis of his decision to sell missiles to Iran in exchange for release of American hostages or his signing of the bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Those are two “rulings” that I completely disagreed with but I loved the presidency of Ronald Reagan overall and I have the utmost respect for his legacy.
As for your “juris uber alles” comment, as I have repeatedly said, if Congress should ever take up the Obama/natural born citizen issue, I would be just as “congresssus uber alles” in reviewing any actions they might take on this issue. The problem is that there has never been a single congressional hearing on whether Obama is a legal president or not. Its difficult to report about inaction.