Clerks & Presidents

[Flanders]

I never saw a difference between JFK and Kim Davis insofar as government officials basing their decisions on their personal moral code go.

Make no mistake on the Kim Davis case. It is not about religion although the bible-thumpers jumped on it faster than horseflies jump a on steaming pile of horse manure.

Notice that JFK cited his conscience not his religion:

. . . when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.​

Nobody resigns because they make an “official” moral decision, certainly not presidents, yet they should be discharged, impeached, removed from office, or run out of town on a rail if they openly admit their decision comes from their conscience.

Kim Davis did not resign even though her decision NOT to sign homosexual marriage licenses had nothing to do with her religion. It had everything to do with Davis using a government position to inflict her beliefs on others. The fact is: Kim Davis did exactly what presidents do.

The conflict began when the first judge codified homosexual marriage regardless of JFK’s constitutional guideline:

For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion
December 05, 200712:48 PM ET

Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion​

In truth, presidents ignore the Constitution whenever it stands in the way of a moral choice. The spiritual leader in the White House brags about it —— while 535 members of Congress, who also swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, stand silent —— at least half of them applaud. Members of Congress are joined by numerous others who also swear to defend the Constitution:

The Oaths of Office

The Oaths of Office​

I am not sure which oath the current Supreme Court justices swore:

The Combined Oath
Upon occasion, appointees to the Supreme Court have taken a combined version of the two oaths, which reads:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices​

An oath of office does not mean much when you come right down to it. Perhaps that is why Justice Kennedy is more concerned with enriching his profession than he is in protecting the Constitution he interprets. Speaking about the Kim Davis case:

Kennedy recently claimed in a speech to students at Harvard that “the rule of law is that, as a public official in performing your legal duties, you are bound to enforce the law.”

Justice Kennedy chastised for not walking his talk
Posted By Bob Unruh On 10/29/2015 @ 7:53 pm

Justice Kennedy chastised for not walking his talk​

I’d be a lot happier had Kennedy said: “ . . . you are bound to enforce the Constitution.”

The scary part is that government officials preserve, protect, and defend the tax collector’s morality more than they defend Americans against enemies foreign and domestic.

Finally, every dirty little moralist in the country finds their way to a government job; so please do not tell me about the separation of church and state. Separating moral freaks and state is infinitely more difficult than separating church and state. JFK was either lying, or he was misinformed when he said:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,. . .”​

Socialist priests killed any hope of separating the two. The will, the courage, the love of individual liberty required to chase the moral freaks out of government simply does not exist.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s a followup on:

Kennedy, the swing vote in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June to create “same-sex marriage,”

Cruz: Justice Kennedy compares own ruling to Nazi Germany
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 10/31/2015 @ 7:25 pm

Cruz: Justice Kennedy compares own ruling to Nazi Germany​

If you read the things Justice Kennedy says in the Kim Davis case you will see that he is nothing more than a slick lawyer. Not once could I find Kennedy saying:

The conflict began when the first judge codified homosexual marriage

Bottom line: Had that first judge not legalized same sex marriage with no more authority than his personal moral view, Kim Davis would not have assumed the authority to deny marriage licenses, and Kennedy and four other lawyers on the Supreme Court would not have been handed the opportunity to “. . . create “same-sex marriage. . .”.

It always comes down to freaks getting what they want from a judge because they know their beliefs are not powerful enough to amend the Constitution. Decriminalizing baby killing, disarming law-abiding Americans, and criminalizing freedom of speech are but three examples of how successful the freaks have been.

Tragically, a very small number judges are fighting an uphill battle against a judicial philosophy that was designed and implemented by the freaks. Be sure of one thing “. . . a living Constitution.” is now the legal system’s judicial philosophy in America. Justice Scalia’s language is not as crude as mine, but he says the same thing:

According to SFGate.com, the conservative judge took particular issue with how some of his fellow justices imagine the country is guided by a “living Constitution.” In Scalia’s opinion, this translates to: “the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is.”

Scalia: Supreme Court Is ‘Liberal,’ Destroying ‘Our Democratic System’
Scott Greer
Associate Editor
11:19 AM 10/30/2015

Scalia: Supreme Court Is ‘Liberal,’ Destroying ‘Our Democratic System’​

To paraphrase Justice Scalia:

“The meaning of the Constitution shall be whatever a majority of dirty little moralist freaks on the Supreme Court say it is.”

 

[Flanders]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/6/005/059/10c/2df3d36.jpg

The Chicago sewer rat & his fellow rats will not submit yet another United Nations Treaty to the US Senate for ratification:

At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.

Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.

Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.​

There is no such thing as international law. That little fact does not stop them from creating a court to hear cases:

Buried on page 19 of the 34-page document is the critical text – still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon – reads:

[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.

XXXXX​

But none of those media chose to report on the proposed new global tribunal.

XXXXX​

Like many initiatives that come out of the U.N., there has been a media blackout on coverage of the potential for a new world tribunal that would make binding decisions on a host of issues critical to the U.S. economy. The draft text has been available on the Internet since Oct. 20 for all to see.​

It is more than legacy:

“President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are mired in foreign policy failures,” Rucker notes. “They desperately want to get this agreement signed so they can claim a victory for their legacies.

U.N. planning court to judge U.S. for 'climate justice'
Posted By Leo Hohmann On 11/01/2015

U.N. planning court to judge U.S. for ‘climate justice’​

It is the arrogance of traitors knowing they cannot be held accountable:

In addition to the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, the sneaks who got this country into the UN knew what they were doing when they designed a foundation that was a masterpiece of betrayal. A foundation that would withstand every challenge when their descendants carried on. Treason became legal the minute the US became a member in an underhanded organization that was, and is, determined to tear down America. Membership in the UN meant that no American official betraying this country on the UN’s behalf could be prosecuted for treason.

Now, let’s jump to the Supreme Court where a constitutional challenge is sure to end up:

the country is guided by a “living Constitution.” In Scalia’s opinion, this translates to: “the meaning of this document shall be whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is.”

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/09/r14429-636.jpg

If Kennedy is a swing vote he always swings towards international law.

Ginsburg has no use for the US Constitution she rules on:

​

Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg teach international law in Salzburg, Austria. What are the odds they will vote to uphold a un-ratified United Nations Treaty as well as vote to legitimate a United Nations Tribunal?

Kagan and Sotomayor are in the sewer rat’s pocket. So how would you like to see Justice Breyer the swing vote defending the US Constitution!

 

[Flanders]

I hope this addendum puts Justice Kennedy in perspective for those who believe that lawyers become gods as soon as they don black ropes:

For all practical purposes the EPA is a United Nations agency:

When it comes to the future of the EPA plan, only two people count: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and the next president.

XXXXX​

Bookbinder said Kennedy matters the most on the high court because he has been the swing vote in nearly all previous cases involving the EPA, including one last summer on the agency's expensive mercury rules for utilities.

XXXXX​

"I bet that Kennedy will uphold the rule," because if the Clean Power Plan doesn't win, it means the EPA can never regulate carbon dioxide emissions.​

Overturning an EPA regulation amounts to overturning the UNIC (United Nations/International Community). There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that Kennedy will vote against the EPA.

I do not know how Mr. Bookbinder came to his opinion of Kennedy’s reluctance:

Kennedy may feel that he doesn't want to be the one who decides that, Bookbinder said.

Justice Kennedy will decide the EPA climate plan's fate
By John Siciliano • 10/30/15 7:50 PM

Justice Kennedy will decide the EPA climate plan's fate: lawyer​

The smart money says Justice Kennedy is chomping on the bit waiting for a chance to decide for the EPA.

Finally, Kennedy does not strike me as the kind of man who would miss an opportunity to vindicate his entire judicial philosophy with one decision. Ruling in favor of one EPA regulation moves everything he stands for ahead by a giant leap —— irrespective of the devastation done that will follow his ruling.

 

[TNHarley]

Not to mention there are a few court cases that put this bullshit to rest. Or it SHOULD have..
Pickering v. Bd. of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006),
These established that members of government, ESPECIALLY one as involved in the JUDICIAL branch, that they dotn have the same rights as citizens(under very specific criteria). Especially free speech.

 

[Flanders]

Not to mention there are a few court cases that put this bullshit to rest. Or it SHOULD have..
Pickering v. Bd. of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006),
These established that members of government, ESPECIALLY one as involved in the JUDICIAL branch, that they dotn have the same rights as citizens(under very specific criteria). Especially free speech.

To TNHarley: I do not see your connection between Justice Kennedy’s judicial philosophy, and your citations where judges ruled in free speech cases. Interpreting the meaning the Constitution as written is supposed to block a judge from legislating political preferences —— which is what Kennedy et al. do under the guise of a “living Constitution.”

 

[TNHarley]

Not to mention there are a few court cases that put this bullshit to rest. Or it SHOULD have..
Pickering v. Bd. of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006),
These established that members of government, ESPECIALLY one as involved in the JUDICIAL branch, that they dotn have the same rights as citizens(under very specific criteria). Especially free speech.

To TNHarley: I do not see your connection between Justice Kennedy’s judicial philosophy, and your citations where judges ruled in free speech cases. Interpreting the meaning the Constitution as written is supposed to block a judge from legislating political preferences —— which is what Kennedy et al. do under the guise of a “living Constitution.”

It relates to clerks and kim davis.

 

[Flanders]

It relates to clerks and kim davis.

To TNHarley: Sorry. My thoughts were on Kennedy.