Our Out-of-Control Court

Lamb & Lion Ministries ^ | June 26, 2015 | David R. Reagan

[imardmd1]

Our Out-of-Control Court

Today our nation's Supreme Court decided that it is the Supreme Being. It spit on God's
Word and endorsed the abominable, immoral concept that the definition of marriage can
be expanded to include a union between two people of the same sex.

The God of this universe is the One who created and defined marriage as a union
between one man and one woman, and no one has the authority to change that definition
(Matthew 19:4-5).

Further, God's Word makes it crystal clear that homosexuality is an abomination in
God's sight and its practice is sufficient to preclude one from the kingdom of God
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

And the first chapter of the book of Romans states that a society's acceptance of
homosexuality is a sign that it is under the judgment of God and is begging for
destruction (Romans 1:18-27).

From a secular viewpoint, it must be noted that the Court's decision, like its previous
decision legalizing abortion, is unconstitutional. Such matters as abortion and marriage
are entrusted to the States under our national constitution. The only proper decision by
the Supreme Court from a legal viewpoint would have been for it to deny that it has any
jurisdiction and that the matter of defining marriage is a power of the States.

Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized this point about State's rights in his dissenting
opinion:

"...this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea
should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to
say what the law is, not what it should be... 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."

Further, all the dissenting judges (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) emphasized that it
is completely undemocratic for the Court to impose its viewpoint concerning such an
important social and moral issue on the entire nation. Consider the words of Justice
Antonin Scalia:

"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. This
practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always
accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the
People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern
themselves."

Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Scalia on this important point:

"Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority's conception of
the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to
govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a
question of social policy to unaccountable
and unelected judges."

Many years ago I remember seeing an interview of Justice Hugo Black (1886-1971) on
television in which he was asked about his role as a Supreme Court Justice. He made it
very clear that the role of a justice should not be to determine whether or not a law is a
good or bad one, or whether it is stupid or reasonable, but only whether or not it is
constitutional. The majority of justices who agreed today to Justice Anthony Kennedy's
opinion have rejected that concept. They argued that not all issues could be foreseen
by
our nation's Founders, and so they argued that the Supreme Court must serve as the
arbiter of those issues, not the democratic process. They ignored the fact that our
Founders provided for such matters by providing for a system of constitutional amendment.

Accordingly, Justice Scalia branded the Court's decision as a "judicial putsch." He wrote,
"The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding
that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the
Fourteenth's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."
In like manner, Chief Justice Roberts called the Court's decision an exercise in "judicial
supremacy."

Justice Scalia, known for his brilliant, scathing dissents, summed up his feelings with these words:

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative -- indeed, super-legislative --
power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the
States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the
esteemed Justices' 'reasoned judgment.' A system of government that
makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers
does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Justice Scalia supplied a very interesting insight into the Court itself when he pointed
out that it is not representative of the nation in any way and therefore has no right to
legislate. He noted that all nine justices have law degrees from either Harvard or Yale.
Six are from New York or New Jersey (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and
Kagan), two are from California (Breyer and Kennedy) and one is from Georgia (Thomas).
Not a one of them is from the Southwest, nor is there a true Westerner on the Court.
And most significantly, none of them are Evangelicals or even members of a Protestant
denomination! Six are Catholics (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and
Sotomayor) and three are Jews (Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan). Scalia's conclusion
about this make-up of the Court was as follows:

...to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and
resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to
violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without
representation: no social transformation without representation.

Justice Scalia also expressed sincere concern about how the Court's decision will
impact the free exercise of religion on the part of those who differ with the decision on
biblical grounds. He pointed out that the majority decision emphasized that the decision
would not impact the right of believers to continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views
of marriage. But the First Amendment guarantees the free "exercise" of religion, and that
is a word the court "ominously" did not use.

We can be assured that there will now be an all-out assault on Christians by the Gay
Mafia as they attempt to force us to violate our biblical beliefs. They will confront all
Christian businesses that participate in any way in marriage ceremonies, they will insist
that ministers perform their marriage rites and they will demand that churches host their
weddings. And when churches and ministers refuse, there will be a demand for them to
be stripped of tax exemptions and benefits (like the housing allowance for pastors). And
you can also be assured that ultimately there will be attempts to make even anti-Gay
speech, including sermons, illegal as "hate crimes."

Note the date: June 26, 2015. It is the date that should be put on the headstone of our
nation because it is the day that America died. We have sealed our destruction. We are
now a walking-dead nation.

===============

(See original article for other links)

[imardmd1]

A bit tardy, but still pertinent.

[epow]

We are now a walking-dead nation.

Date of death, Jan 20, 2009.

[imardmd1]

The link in the title of the article didn't work right. To get the original article, click on the below:

http://www.lamblion.com/enewsletter1/new_enewsletter_template_150629.html

or go on the page provided, click on "News" in the top bar, and for a few days you will still see the title "Our Out-of-control Court" and that will work. Apparently their site search function is not working quite right, either.

[sauropod]

My pastor is going to preach on this tomorrow.

I’m expecting a real Fire and Brimstone sermon!

[bestintxas]

This can be controlled, but only if the Congress we hired does its job.

Obama can nominate, but Congress can take away.