Posted on 05/04/2015 12:37:29 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Two years ago, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled it was a terrible thing for the federal government to dictate the definition of marriage to all 50 states. Despite the fact it was done lawfully via a bill passed through both houses of Congress, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
Two years later, the same five justices who made up that majority are poised to reverse themselves, and say it's perfectly fine for the federal government to dictate the definition of marriage to all 50 states. Provided it's done so unlawfully by judicial fiat this time.
Cognitive dissonance, meet the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court, meet cognitive dissonance.
Wait, you're old friends? You don't say.
Listen, I don't want to label last week's Supreme Court hearing on the definition of marriage as nothing but political theater, but there was enough overacting and cheesy dialogue to inspire Michael Bay's next film.
There's laying it on thick and then there's flat-out grandstanding. In this case, the latter was in full effect as the nation's highest court called upon its fork-tongued spirit animal – who looks conspicuously like Pontius Pilate – for inspiration. The Supreme Court pretended to agonize over an unjust decision that everyone on both sides of the divisive marriage debate knows is coming with metaphysical certitude.
And if you believe that same court can quickly put an end to this matter by leap-frogging the previous 5,000 years of recorded human history concerning marriage, then you probably believe in pro-life Democrats, too. Quite the contrary, SCOTUS rendering a Roe v. Wade style opinion on marriage will touch off a full-fledged culture war that will make the abortion battles of the last 40 years seem tame by comparison.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It’s okay for the federal government to redefine marriage as long as it favors the Sodomites.
Does he still have a weenie?
Darn, I mean, is she going to keep the weenie?
With that three year old girly pout it was either a sex change or getting b**** slapped every day for the rest of his life.
Its not about redefining marriage. Its about eliminating the differences between the sexes—long a goal of the Left. After they have perverted marriage and mainstreamed homosexuality, they will move on to normalizing pedophilia. Goal: destroy families and the churches.
XY thingy.
I don't know if he's had a chopadictomy yet.
Which makes electing a true conservative who will appoint conservative judges to the federal courts even more important.
If the 17th Amendment had not been ratified, there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court today, and patriots probably wouldn’t be concerned about activist justices trying to destroy the family.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and activist justices along with it.
Roe v. Wade — The government cannot intrude into the doctor/patient relationship because there is a Constitutional right to privacy.
National Federation of Independent Business et Al. V. Sebelius — The government can intrude into the doctor/patient relationship because the government can force people to buy insurance.
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/17th-amendment/
How would it be better? I certainly don’t always approve of how the legislatures choose their own leaders and committee chairmen. What makes you think they would do any better choosing Senators?
At this point in time, I wouldn’t be surprised if most state lawmakers aren’t aware of the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
If state lawmakers still uniquely controlled the Senate as the Founding States had intended, then they could raise more revenue for their state simply by electing federal senators who would kill unconstitutional House appropriations bills, bills which the House cannot justify under Congress’s Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Again, the 17th Amendment needs to disappear, along with a bunch of corrupt senators who help the House to steal state revenues with unconstitutional appropriations bills.
More important is the return of the states to the senate.
Which is why I support a Convention of States. One of the proposed amendments is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
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.