The nation—dare I say the entire world—reverberated with a combination of dismay and celebration to the US Supreme Court’s decision on homosexual marriage. The Court’s ruling on Obamacare sent shockwaves of its own throughout America.
These rulings repeat a black moment in history when in 1973 our nation’s highest Court blatantly legislated from the bench, which resulted in the largest loss of human life in our country’s history. These recent decisions create a trend that may impact our efforts to secure constitutional protection for America’s unborn babies and will undoubtedly chill or outright curtail your rights as a citizen.
The constitutional red flags raised in these decisions eclipse the strident rainbow banners of the homosexual movement. What may be worse than the rulings themselves is how the Court apparently made its decisions outside the framework of the US Constitution.
“Interpretive jiggery-pokery” is how Justice Scalia defined the majority’s decision in King v Burwell, the Obamacare decision. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines this term as “underhanded manipulation or dealings: trickery.”
With this decision, the nation’s highest court further soiled its reputation regarding honest jurisprudence by establishing a new legal precedence: words have no meaning. Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code, which was enacted as part of the ACA, permits federal tax credit subsidies to individuals who purchase health insurance coverage through an “[e]xchange established by the state under section 1311” of the ACA. It doesn’t take a law degree, let alone a US Supreme Court pedigree, to understand that the word “state” means state and not “federal government.”
Chief Justice John Roberts summarized the majority opinion this way. “The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” meaning the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange.” By deciding the state exchanges would tank if they ruled otherwise shows they clearly used a legislative remedy instead of judicial reasoning.
Justice Scalia, in his dissent, shared this court-activist sentiment, but with his added judicial flair. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.” He added what is now his famous remark, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Legislating from the bench has become a standard method of operation instead of an anomaly to be categorically excoriated by legal experts and citizens alike. I’m worried how this will impact future decisions related to abortion.
Days later, in their Obergefell v Hodges decision, the Court expanded its practice of jettisoning the Constitution to advance a political agenda. Not since Roe v Wade has the Court so blatantly manufactured constitutional impetus to upend Americans’ deeply-held practice of traditional marriage.
[tweetthis]Not since Roe v Wade has the Court so blatantly manufactured constitutional impetus.[/tweetthis]
If you read Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, it becomes obvious he’s arguing his case from a moral line of reasoning, not a constitutional perspective. Chief Justice John Roberts reacts to this below.
During the early ’70s, in the midst of a national debate on abortion, when a vast majority of states were rejecting the killing of unborn babies and when even the New York legislature was about to undo an earlier liberal abortion law, the Supreme Court stepped in. By edict, totally usurping the Constitution, they forced all states to legalize abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the Court multiple times for wielding such a heavy-handed decision before Americans had their say. But that’s exactly what she and her colleagues did with homosexual marriage.
Chief Justice John Roberts, his credibility in tatters over the earlier decision, nevertheless offered these strong words in his dissent. “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” Roberts gets even more pointed. “The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia … Just who do we think we are?”
Since this decision, there’s been considerable angst expressed over whether Americans who disagree can “exercise” their rights under the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito warned of the long-term ramifications for you and me. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools.”
If you don’t think it will go that far, it’s time for a reality check. Even groups like the ACLU that claim to champion First Amendment rights will kick us to the curb in their effort to worship everything gay.
I more fully understand why so many Christians have been sitting on the sidelines with blinders comfortably secured. They naively think that those who oppose true marriage and the sanctity of human life will be satisfied with their latest victory and go away. They aren’t going away. THIS IS A WAR and unless Christians engage, we will lose everything, including our hard-fought gains to end the modern-day holocaust of abortion.
The Coalition of African American Pastors initiated an ultimately futile petition to persuade justices Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves from the marriage decision. In a February interview with Bloomberg Business Ginsburg said Americans are ready to accept a Court decision allowing same-sex marriage. And both Ginsburg and Kagan personally officiated at same-sex weddings. It’s further evidence sacrosanct parameters guiding the Court’s actions have been twisted or discarded altogether.
The Supreme Court has signaled its intent to follow Mr. Obama’s lead, systematically changing our nation from a great republic to another failed socialist experiment—Constitution or not. When they’re finished, we won’t recognize it and neither would our founding fathers.