Scalia: The SCOTUS Majority A 'Threat to America’

®™©

^“8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,” [and for murders of children] 1 Timothy 1:8-9New King James Version (NKJV)  

Scalia: The SCOTUS Majority A 'Threat to America’

By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:

Published June 18, 2015

 (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court's decision and called the majority on the high court a "threat to American democracy."

Even though Antonin Scalia hasn’t gone as far as I have when describing the useless Federal Supreme Court that hasn’t upheld the U.S. Constitution since the John Jay Court, and in case you didn’t know that was the First U.S. Supreme Court in history.  But at least he has stated the obviousness of the current court.  

The ruling "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," Scalia said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Samuel Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas all dissented in separate opinions.

There are currently 13 state bans in place, while 8 state appellate court overturned the will of the people and Alabama, currently has contested a court ruling that lifted the ban there.

Scalia's dissent was among the strongest:

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," he wrote. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. 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. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best." 

"But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law," Scalia argued. "Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect."


"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he writes. "If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

"And 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," he argued. "But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch."

  

Scalia took the harshest decent against the majority:

THE BOTTOM LINE: The Fourteenth Amendment that was supposedly the bases for the majority opinion was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

 

So specifically the Equal Protection clause was meant for former slaves to be protected by the law as equals. Which prior to that time African slaves had not.  The Equal Protection was later used in courts for other applications but always as the law pertains to a criminal cases, which this is not.

 

As Justus Scalia said the Constitution had nothing to do with the majority decision because the Equal Protection clause in the fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with marriage rights or any other rights only that due process of the law is enforced for Blacks as well as anyone else. And prevents the States from passing or enforcing laws that arbitrarily discriminate against anyone. 

Guess what? The United States didn’t pass any law regarding marriage that changed the law. Marriage between a man and a woman has been a law of science for six thousand years. If it had not been so, the human race would not have survived beyond the first generation.

  

Thanks for listening – de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.