Posted on 02/10/2015 6:03:47 AM PST by xzins
In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas excoriated his fellow justices for refusing to temporarily stop enforcement of a federal district judge's ruling that overturned the marriage laws of the state of Alabama and ordered Alabama to recognize as legal "marriages" unions between two people of the same sex.
On Jan. 23, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ruled that Alabama laws limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the law. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange petitioned the Supreme Court to prevent the judge's decision from going into effect until the Supreme Court itself issued its ruling on same-sex marriage--which the court will do this term.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the lower court ruling--with Justice Thomas and Scalia dissenting.
In his dissent from the court's refusal to grant the stay, Justice Thomas rhetorically smacked his colleagues for disregarding it own standard practices and the deference due to state governments and voters.
"This acquiescence [in the lower court ruling] may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution of that question [of same-sex marriage]," wrote Thomas.
"This is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities," he said. "And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is. Today’s decision represents yet another example of this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States. Over the past few months, the Court has repeatedly denied stays of lower court judgments enjoining the enforcement of state laws on questionable constitutional grounds.
"It has similarly declined to grant certiorari to review such judgments without any regard for the people who approved those laws in popular referendums or elected the representatives who voted for them," wrote Thomas. "In this case, the Court refuses even to grant a temporary stay when it will resolve the issue at hand in several months."
The Scotus truly is drunk on its own power
And this tells you exactly how the court is going to rule on this issue.
Mark Levin’s idea for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution may be the remedy for Federal courts’ intrusion into the area of marriage contracts, historically a state responsibility.
Well, “the states” sure aren’t doing a lot to fight back in a way that pokes a finger in the feds’ eye.
How about some state just saying “no”, and daring the feds to enforce it?
The move toward dictatorship continues.
In the end, it doesn't even matter which flavor dictator is at the top, there will be a dictator.
I absolutely agree with you.
It would be the turning point in this culture war for the traditional culture to stand up and say ‘Hell no.”
The same with common core: Parents could nullify it in a heartbeat. “Institute it and we keep our kids home until it’s gone. Period.”
Done as a mass protest, there would be no stopping the people.
They have abdicated they responsibility to the constitution and their rulings are now meaningless and I simply will no longer follow them.
Yeah, even if the feds sent in enforcers to try to make the state and local governments enforce their judicial edicts, they don’t have anywhere near the numbers to physically make every state citizen comply.
You can tell the fix is in wrt gay marriage in this Supreme Court. Which case did they give certiorari to, but the one in which gay couples are appealing a lower court ruling upholding the man-woman marriage laws of certain states.
Is that Roberts leading, or refusing to lead?
Did Roberts become another Souter?
-PJ
Did Roberts become another Souter?Roberts is worthless. Someone has something on him.
Well don’t stop there! If Arizona has constitutional carry, then by God everybody has it. Right?!?
They are ignoring the constitution now, why do you think they wouldn’t ignore it after it was changed? Even that makes the huge assumption that it would be changed for the better and not for the worse.
Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered the courts in Alabama to disobey the imposition of gay marriage upon his state.
Was this a voted on decision by the full court? Or was it a situation where the individual justice who makes temporary decisions(on cases slated for the court) on a particular day, dropped this bomb?
Time to resurrect the 10th amendment.
The Court clearly has an outcome in mind and are looking for any “legal” justification they can find to reach that outcome. Liberalism in action - reach outcome first, look for legal justification last.
A clear view into the crystal ball. Rampant government endorsed homosexuality, manipulating the destruction of Israel, robbing the earnings and property from the productive to disperse among the slothful; all evidence of the implementation of right for wrong.
God owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah if He doesn’t thumb our nation like a bug.
When the President behaves lawlessly, contemptuous of the Constitution, we seek redress in the Congress.
When The President and the Congress behave lawlessly, contemptuous of the Constitution, we seek redress in the Courts.
When the President, the Congress, and the Courts behave lawlessly, contemptuous of the Constitution, we seek redress, ... where?
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.