Supreme Court Justices Infringing on Our Freedoms

images (10)

The Constitution is the law of the land; it was written to protect all citizens of the USA.  No one has the right or authority to arbitrarily rewrite the Constitution.

Americans certainly don’t need the Supreme Court meddling with their Constitution – the Justices seem to believe that they are our Supreme leaders who can infringe on our freedoms by rewriting our Constitutional laws.

Our Supreme Court seems to get confused on their duties; instead of interpreting the laws of our land, they have opted to rewrite the laws.  Same sex marriage is a perfect example of the Justices meddling when they should have turned the decision on same sex marriage back to the States.  This new law created by the Justices will snowball and they will be inundated with cases involving same sex marriage.

Problems are already surfacing – County Clerk Kim Davis Defends Refusal to Issue Marriage …

Chief Justice John Roberts download

Roberts’s ar­gu­ment centered around the need to pre­serve states’ rights rather than fol­low the turn of pub­lic opin­ion. In rul­ing in fa­vor of gay mar­riage, he said, “Five law­yers have closed the de­bate and en­acted their own vis­ion of mar­riage as a mat­ter of con­sti­tu­tion­al law.”

Justices Ant­on­in Scalia and Clar­ence Thomas joined him in his dis­sent.

While Roberts said he did not “be­grudge” any of the cel­eb­ra­tions that would fol­low the Court rul­ing, he had ser­i­ous con­cerns that the Court had ex­ten­ded its role from con­sti­tu­tion­al en­for­cer to act­iv­ist.

Roberts: “Un­der­stand well what this dis­sent is about: It is not about wheth­er, in my judg­ment, the in­sti­tu­tion of mar­riage should be changed to in­clude same-sex couples.”

“Un­der­stand well what this dis­sent is about: It is not about wheth­er, in my judg­ment, the in­sti­tu­tion of mar­riage should be changed to in­clude same-sex couples. It is in­stead about wheth­er, in our demo­crat­ic re­pub­lic, that de­cision should rest with the people act­ing through their elec­ted rep­res­ent­at­ives, or with five law­yers who hap­pen to hold com­mis­sions au­thor­iz­ing them to re­solve leg­al dis­putes ac­cord­ing to law,” he wrote.

Justice Ant­on­in Scalia download (16)

Ac­cord­ing to Scalia, the ma­jor­ity rul­ing rep­res­ents a “ju­di­cial Putsch.”

Scalia wrote that while he has no per­son­al opin­ions on wheth­er the law should al­low same-sex mar­riage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Su­preme Court to de­cide.

“Un­til the courts put a stop to it, pub­lic de­bate over same-sex mar­riage dis­played Amer­ic­an demo­cracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this de­bate, in an opin­ion lack­ing even a thin ven­eer of law.”

Scalia said he wanted to write a sep­ar­ate dis­sent “to call at­ten­tion to this Court’s threat to Amer­ic­an demo­cracy.” Thomas joined Scalia in the dis­sent.

Scalia at­tacked his col­leagues’ opin­ion with his sig­na­ture flour­ish. “The opin­ion is couched in a style that is as pre­ten­tious as its con­tent is egot­ist­ic,” he wrote.

Scalia: “One would think Free­dom of In­tim­acy is abridged rather than ex­pan­ded by mar­riage. Ask the nearest hip­pie.”

Ac­cord­ing to Scalia, the five justices in the ma­jor­ity used the 14th Amend­ment in a way that was nev­er in­ten­ded by its writers. “When the Four­teenth Amend­ment was rat­i­fied in 1868, every State lim­ited mar­riage to one man and one wo­man, and no one doubted the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of do­ing so,” he wrote.

Another very biased decision by the Supreme Court Justices is Obamacare.  The Supreme Court pretty much backed Obama’s healthcare grab; basically it was an infringement on our freedoms.  There isn’t any place in the Constitution that gives the Government the right to control our healthcare.

It is apparent that the people have lost their voice and the Government is no longer a Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

May God Bless America

As Always,

Little Tboca