Posted on 02/26/2014 12:16:05 PM PST by don-o
Clinton appointee!
Example- "As governor of the great state of Texas, I have ordered every state and county official to ignore this ruling. The laws of the Texas are clear and shall be followed. The will of the people shall not be countermanded by one politically motivated judge."
A hundred and one years ago. For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment was repealed with the 17th.
Justice Scalia pointed to the future in his dissent on the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. They want cases to go there for the gay marriage version of Roe vs. Wade.
The demonization of those who oppose it will lead to the prosecution and persecution of gay marriage opponents a de facto regulation of religion by government.
They were paving the way to the national legalization of gay marriage through that decision.
Scalia said they were begging for cases challenging state laws with that decision and demonizing gay marriage opponents.
From a related thread ...
To begin with, I don’t know how patriot attorneys argued this case for Texas.
That said, the BIG problem with these unconstitutional decisions by activist judges is that patriot attorneys don’t seem to be getting clued in on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty in law school. And if such is the case, then patriot attorneys can’t effectively argue 10A issues. The same thing possibly happened in Roe v. Wade.
Next, one remedy to this situation is that patriots need to start putting pressure on federal lawmakers to require federal judges to reference specific constitutional clauses to substantiate why a given issue is constitutional or not constitutional in their official decisions. No more of this PC “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” garbage from activist judges.
Finally, the activist judge in this case is wrongly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay issues, imo, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights. Such judges are arguably taking advantage of low-information patriot attornies who cannot effectively argue 10A issues.
Reagan did appoint Kennedy.
But the Dems had a large majority in the senate, and they had already rejected Reagan’s first two choices, starting with Robert Bork.
So maybe cut Reagan some slack here.
Insanity.
Texas may prove the Vatican correct on this matter.
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.