Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling
http://www.charlotteobserver.com ^ | June 21, 2013 | Michael Gordon

Posted on 06/24/2013 8:30:51 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

ASHEVILLE With a potentially ground-breaking decision on gay marriage expected next week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday morning that he and other judges should stop setting moral standards concerning homosexuality and other issues.

Why?

We aren’t qualified, Scalia said.

In a speech titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” the outspoken and conservative jurist told the N.C. Bar Association that constitutional law is threatened by a growing belief in the “judge moralist.” In that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: doma; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; scalia; scotus; sourcetitlenoturl
Get ready for a 5-4 ruling giving the country sodomite "marriage". Tie-breaker vote will of course be the worthless John Roberts. This will make his dyke first cousin, who he got tickets to watch the proceeding, very happy.
1 posted on 06/24/2013 8:30:51 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“n that role, judges are bestowed with special expertise to determine right and wrong in such matters as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, the death penalty and same-sex marriage.”

Or, they could just test the laws against the Constitution. The “moral arbiter” problem only arises, when you decide the Constitution is a “living document”.


2 posted on 06/24/2013 8:34:03 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

OH im sure the phone tapping and IRS digging has found something on Roberts a long time ago. Hence his twisted Healthcare ruling in favor of the Obama debacle.


3 posted on 06/24/2013 8:39:58 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

This is a bad omen. If Scalia is speaking about it now, then it means that is exactly what has happened with these rulings. Look for Prop 8 and DOMA thrown out and 5 judges ordering the country to marry anyone.


4 posted on 06/24/2013 8:41:26 PM PDT by TMA62 (Al Sharpton - The North Korea of race relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All

If parents were making sure that their children were being taught the Constitution and its history, particularly the Founding States’ division of federal and state government powers, then grade school students would probably be able to point out that the Constituton’s silence about marriage means that it is a 10A-protected state power issue.


5 posted on 06/24/2013 8:49:23 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Tie-breaker vote will of course be the blackmailed in-the-closet pole smoker worthless John Roberts.
6 posted on 06/24/2013 8:54:35 PM PDT by peyton randolph (Tagline copyright in violation of Directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; All

As a side note to Supreme Court decisions, note that when state lawmakers actually understood the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision by ratifying an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing so.


7 posted on 06/24/2013 8:59:50 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
... they could effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision by ratifying an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing so ...

Don't forget the 14th Amendment. It invalidated the Dred Scott decision, so that it never had to be re-visited [and overturned].

8 posted on 06/24/2013 9:10:07 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Except that Reynolds makes the exact opposite argument that per the common law, marriage is one man and one woman.

The common law pre-exists the constitution and the constitution doesn’t abrogate common law protections for Habeaus Corpus, trial by jury and traditional marriage.


9 posted on 06/24/2013 9:12:15 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

The other problem is, suppose you are right?

What happens with spousal visas?

Marriage has always been a federal domain, not the purview of the states.


10 posted on 06/24/2013 9:13:14 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
As a side note to Supreme Court decisions, note that when state lawmakers actually understood the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision by ratifying an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing so.

That's the beauty of checks and balances. Don't like the way the Supremes interpreted the Constitution? Then modify it to clarify.

Unfortunately, that won't help us when SCOTUS imposes gay marriage. We didn't have the political will to pass a Constitutional Amendment even when strong majorities were on our side; now that those numbers have flipped the very notion is sadly laughable.
11 posted on 06/24/2013 9:20:07 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

So, which word will they change the definition of next, to make some special interest group feel better about themselves?


12 posted on 06/24/2013 9:22:00 PM PDT by originalbuckeye (Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Constitutional Law for Enlightened Citizens
13 posted on 06/24/2013 9:41:16 PM PDT by boxlunch (Psalm 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Scalia may be telegraphing that SCOTUS passes [for now] on a gay marriage decision.

SCOTUS may decide that each state is allowed to set its rules for marriage. That being said, SCOTUS may invalidate DOMA due to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Then, in the other case, SCOTUS may decide that the concept of gay marriage is so new that it is too soon to rule on it. Given that only 12 of 50 states have adopted it.

Therefore, SCOTUS may vacate the 9th Circuit’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional [at least for now] - citing that each state can decide its own marriage rules. And that Prop 8 was constituionally approved by CA voters.


14 posted on 06/24/2013 9:53:53 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

the founding fathers had no problems with it. sadly scalia is no longer one of us.

all law is morality. is it going to be yours, or is itgoing to be someone else’s moral worldview? that’s the ultimate question.


15 posted on 06/24/2013 10:19:32 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

nope.

marriage has been regulated by the states, forever, long before fedgov existed. it’s why marriage laws vary by state.


16 posted on 06/24/2013 10:21:32 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TMA62

My thoughts as well. On his time scale, this behavior has happened yet again, with the court siding with the homos.

What’s particularly telling is that, in the past, he’d openly label homosexual acts as immoral. For him to now say that the court is unqualified seems like an ever-so-slight shift in tact.


17 posted on 06/24/2013 10:49:14 PM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

“Tie-breaker vote will of course be the blackmailed in-the-closet pole smoker worthless John Roberts.”

Roberts may vote with the majority. But Kennedy is the tie breaker. He wrote Lawrence v. Texas, which enshrined sodomy as a sacred constitutional right.

Of course the four libs will vote for gay marriage as a sacred consitutional right. But so too will Kennedy. Roberts may vote with the majority too. But he may be allowed to vote with the minority to restore his credentials with conservatives as there’s already a 5-4 majority for and has been for years. It just took the right case.


18 posted on 06/24/2013 11:20:24 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

For some reason, a 6-3 decision seems even more nauseating than 5-4. To the casual, ignorant, swing-vote observer, that kind of margin in favor of faux marriage would probably look lopsided.. that, and I can see the media portraying the three dissenting justices as “extremists.”

I just wish that this would be over with already.


19 posted on 06/24/2013 11:25:27 PM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

David Souter is back, and he’s the Chief Justice of the Supreme court.
America is dead and gone.


20 posted on 06/24/2013 11:41:39 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Justice is a Virtue—and our moral standards are Judeo-Christian Ethics which is fundamental to our Founding Documents-—that determined Right and Wrong. It is the foundation (First Principle) of our Legal system-—not the Ethics of Satanists, Saudis and Afghanis, where sodomy mocks God’s Design and Natural Law.

Our Rights come from God in the USA-—not from the State—or Courts—and there is no Right to Vice (sodomizing others)—in a “Justice” system. It is quiet clear—and Right Reason is part of any “Just” law. When laws cease to be Just—they cease to be law.

This insanity inside our courts which promotes Vice instead of Virtue-—has to end or we will collapse-—as Cicero stated any unjust “legal” system would.

All justices who force Vice into “Just” laws have to be impeached.


21 posted on 06/24/2013 11:56:27 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

JUSTICE THOMAS is the only AMERICAN serving on the SCOTUS.

LLS


22 posted on 06/25/2013 4:36:13 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I disagree. The one thing I have learned about the seemingly bipolar court is that they almost never place any checks or limits on the power of the Federal government. I think DOMA survives since it is a federal law.


23 posted on 06/25/2013 4:56:31 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

“Given that only 12 of 50 states have adopted it”

How many of those states by an actual vote of the people. In most states that have “adopted it”, a liberal state legislature passed it and an Obama-loving liberal governor signed off on it.


24 posted on 06/25/2013 8:04:26 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

25 posted on 06/25/2013 8:15:49 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

[citation needed]

I provided a citation for mine - the Reynolds decision.


26 posted on 06/25/2013 8:18:00 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Not sure what he means by "not qualified" but SCOTUS is certainly not constitutionally qualified to be ruling on these state-specific matters that are outside the legitimate constitutional scope of the federal government's limited powers.

Truth and right will prevail sooner or later. Sometimes when evil becomes more assertive, it may be a sign of the soon coming end to its prevalence.

27 posted on 06/25/2013 8:45:55 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Not sure what he means by "not qualified" but SCOTUS is certainly not constitutionally qualified to be ruling on these state-specific matters that are outside the legitimate constitutional scope of the federal government's limited powers.

And therein lies the problem: the USSC views everything as their constitutional scope. That's one reason why Roe v. Wade is damaging; it's one reason why the Commerce Clause has been stretched and twisted so: to put issues that are not legitimately theirs into their purview.

28 posted on 06/25/2013 8:54:34 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I half expect SCOTUS to deny legal standing (all federal courts) in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which would result in the CA Supreme Court decision being upheld rather than overturning the 9th Circuit on the "ripeness" of the issue. We get the decisions tomorrow!
29 posted on 06/25/2013 8:59:13 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Yup. It seems that the founders knew that with the Revolutionary War won and Constitution ratified, the fight to maintain a free constitutional republic wasn't over, but just shifted focus on the newly formed U.S. government.

Unfortunately, that focus and vision has steadily dimmed.

30 posted on 06/25/2013 10:55:16 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson