[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]On Friday, the Supreme Court continued their recent habit of judicial activism by affirming same-sex marriage as being legal in all fifty states. This follows closely behind this week’s ruling that Obamacare subsidies apply to both federal and state exchanges, a drastic departure from the law’s wording.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]The 5-4 split that legalized homosexual unions came as a shock to few as the Supreme Court has, in recent years, appeared committed to furthering the left’s agenda. Still, some were justifiably outraged over the court’s decision, including one member of the court- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who called the very Supreme Court on which he serves a “threat to American democracy.”
In, perhaps, the best, most-powerful dissent ever witnessed by this author, Scalia authored a scathing rebuttal of the ruling and of the court’s assumed power and blasted the court’s decision as serving as a threat to our nation, writing, (emphasis added)
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. 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. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.
[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”553157113d3ff”][vc_column_text]This decision is about far more than same-sex marriage, but an affirmation of what Scalia fears: that the Supreme Court is now committed to affirming and creating new, imagined “rights” that simply do not exist within the texts of our Constitution nor within the confines of our social fabric.
Today, a sacred institution that has stood for thousands of years was torn down like a Saddam statue in post-liberated Iraq. The culprits? 5 unelected judges who appear more committed to creating fictitious rights than honoring their sacred charge- interpreting the laws as written.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]