JUDICIAL TYRANNY—inferior court judge’s unconstitutional reasoning
From http://www.askheritage.org/
“What Does the Will of the American People Mean to the Obama Administration?
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: ‘Nothing.’ Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the ‘facts’ Judge Walker found:
1) Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (Actually, NO!!! It gives them an opportunity to repent and STOP SINNING!!!—my addition)
2) The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. (THEY ARE INFERIOR! THEY ARE SIN RELATIONSHIPS!!!—my addition)
3) The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. (What does this have to do with whether or not the State of California may regulate marriage within its State? Why not simply allow the inferior federal court to write every State law? It would save a lot of time since some inferior federal court judges seem to think they have the power to rewrite State law. They don’t! Read the Constitution! Do we even have a Constitution any more?—my addition)
4) The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. (GOD lies; this humanist who hasn’t created any humans as GOD did knows more than GOD!!!—my addition)
5) Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted. (But, it certainly helps! No two people of the same sex can have a baby! NO ONE!!!—my addition)
How did Judge Walker arrive at these ‘facts’? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents ‘experts’ said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was ‘unreliable’ and ‘provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.’ (Why do they even have to? The question is not, or should not be, whether it was a “valid” decision by the people of California. NO FEDERAL judge has the authority to make that determination!!!—my addition) In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: ‘Not only did [Judge Walker’s court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.’
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: ‘Nothing.’ We’ll see today if the Senate agrees. (Of course, they did by a 63-37 vote. It was not surprising—my addition.)
From http://www.askheritage.org/
“What Does the Will of the American People Mean to the Obama Administration?
This Tuesday voters in Missouri, by a 40-point margin, approved a ballot measure rejecting the individual mandate at the core of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: ‘Nothing.’ Yesterday in San Francisco, federal judge Vaughn Walker gave the exact same weight to a California ballot measure that affirmed marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms. Here are just some of the ‘facts’ Judge Walker found:
1) Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. (Actually, NO!!! It gives them an opportunity to repent and STOP SINNING!!!—my addition)
2) The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. (THEY ARE INFERIOR! THEY ARE SIN RELATIONSHIPS!!!—my addition)
3) The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. (What does this have to do with whether or not the State of California may regulate marriage within its State? Why not simply allow the inferior federal court to write every State law? It would save a lot of time since some inferior federal court judges seem to think they have the power to rewrite State law. They don’t! Read the Constitution! Do we even have a Constitution any more?—my addition)
4) The genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes. (GOD lies; this humanist who hasn’t created any humans as GOD did knows more than GOD!!!—my addition)
5) Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted. (But, it certainly helps! No two people of the same sex can have a baby! NO ONE!!!—my addition)
How did Judge Walker arrive at these ‘facts’? By agreeing with everything the same-sex marriage proponents ‘experts’ said while ruling that the traditional marriage witness was ‘unreliable’ and ‘provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.’ (Why do they even have to? The question is not, or should not be, whether it was a “valid” decision by the people of California. NO FEDERAL judge has the authority to make that determination!!!—my addition) In so doing, Walker not only ignored the views of millions of Californians, but by basing his decision on the 14th Amendment, he also ignored the factual determinations of every single popular vote that has been held on the issue in the past two decades. According to Judge Walker’s reasoning every single one of these Americans is a bigot whose opinion on marriage has no place under Judge Walker’s Constitution.
From the beginning, it was clear that Judge Walker was more interested in making a political statement than upholding the rule of law. That is why after Judge Walker ruled that the trial could be broadcast live the Supreme Court took the remarkable step of overturning his decision, writing in January: ‘Not only did [Judge Walker’s court] ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue.’
Clearly that Supreme Court would have rightly viewed with great skepticism every sentence of Judge Walker’s spurious ruling. But that Court will not be deciding this case. Today the Senate will vote on whether to confirm President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The same Elena Kagan who manipulated the law and facts to deny military recruiters equal access to Harvard law students because she did not personally approve of our military’s personnel policies regarding same-sex relationships.
The facts are becoming quite clear. Kagan, Walker, Gibbs and Obama all give the same weight to the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box: ‘Nothing.’ We’ll see today if the Senate agrees. (Of course, they did by a 63-37 vote. It was not surprising—my addition.)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:17 PM
<< Home