Clarence Thomas: 'Another Example of This Court’s Increasingly Cavalier Attitude Toward the States'

CNS ^ | February 9, 2015 | Terence P. Jeffrey

[highball]

“We have lost gay marriage, the only way it will ever go away is if there is a federal ban that is upheld by the courts”

On that we agree, but sadly it’s just not going to happen. Not a federal ban, and even if we could manage that it would never be upheld by the courts. So we need to learn from our mistakes and work smarter on the next one.

As for States’ Rights, I guess I’m more a believer than you. I don’t want the Federal Government to have the right to tell them how to handle their internal affairs. Don’t see much difference, in fact, between that and the libs forcing Texas to adopt California lifestyles.

[Soul of the South]

Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Republican Congress can pass a bill tomorrow establishing regulations restricting the involvement of the federal courts in any aspect of law including its ability to overrule state court decisions. The Supreme Courts power to overrule decision of state courts is one it claimed and assumed. It is not a power delineated in the Constitution.