Judicial Arrogance

[alang1216]

"...'judges' merely reflect the morality of the culture..."

Of course they don't .....they do the very opposite.

Untrue, at least on one major issue, gay marriage, SCOTUS did reflect current US culture. You may choose to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative but...

+
Only 2 states don't support it

Pleeeeezzzzze try to stop lying.


"Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court."
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com




“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.

The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi

An 8 year old article (2010) is the best you got? Doesn't matter since you've inadvertently managed to prove my point since it was about that time that attitudes changed on the matter:

% of U.S. adults who favor/oppose same-sex marriage (2001-2017)


Year Favor Oppose
2001 35% 57%
2003 32% 59%
2004 31% 60%
2005 36% 53%
2006 35% 55%
2007 37% 54%
2008 39% 51%
2009 37% 54%
2010 42% 48%
2011 46% 45%
2012 48% 43%
2013 50% 43%
2014 52% 40%
2015 55% 39%
2016 55% 37%
2017 62% 32%

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...'judges' merely reflect the morality of the culture..."

Of course they don't .....they do the very opposite.

Untrue, at least on one major issue, gay marriage, SCOTUS did reflect current US culture. You may choose to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative but...

+
Only 2 states don't support it

Pleeeeezzzzze try to stop lying.


"Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
(CNN) -- A federal judge in California on Wednesday struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution -- handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court."
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage - CNN.com




“The tendency of elite domination, moreover, is to press America ever more steadily towards the cultural left.

The complaint here is not that old virtues are eroding and new values rising. Morality inevitably evolves….What is objectionable is that, in too many instances, a natural evolution of the moral balance is blocked and a minority morality forced upon us by judicial decrees.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values,” xi

An 8 year old article (2010) is the best you got? Doesn't matter since you've inadvertently managed to prove my point since it was about that time that attitudes changed on the matter:

% of U.S. adults who favor/oppose same-sex marriage (2001-2017)


Year Favor Oppose
2001 35% 57%
2003 32% 59%
2004 31% 60%
2005 36% 53%
2006 35% 55%
2007 37% 54%
2008 39% 51%
2009 37% 54%
2010 42% 48%
2011 46% 45%
2012 48% 43%
2013 50% 43%
2014 52% 40%
2015 55% 39%
2016 55% 37%
2017 62% 32%

I admit, the multitudinous ways you find to lie, are amusing.


I said that the elites, judges, do everything they can to enforce cultural Marxism, to obviate tradition and the views of the public.

The public votes...VOTES....in support of traditional marriage....and a judge throws thousands of votes out, as per his particular Leftist bias.


In which of your examples does a judge validate traditional attitudes and values???


Oh....NONE.

Do they actually teach sophistry in government school.....or did you pick it up all on your own?

 

[alang1216]

In which of your examples does a judge validate traditional attitudes and values???

Whose traditions are we talking about? Yours? Mine? The Founding Fathers?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Continuing the themes of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the of the upheavals of the 60s, the Courts have pressed the attacks on religion.

Strangely, Secular Leftism itself has itself taken on the façade of a religion, while remaining tirelessly hostile to the Judeo-Christian doctrines upon which America was founded.




"There is “no mystery about its hostility to Christianity. Real religions … don’t much like each other; they are, after all, competitors... [Leftism] however, is in the interesting position of being a kind of religion which does not recognize itself as such, and indeed claims a cognitive superiority to religion in general. [It] is an imperial project which can only be hindered by the association between Christianity and the West.

I think philosophically simpler answer is that God of the Bible must not exist, because if He does, then we can’t do whatever we like. So He either must be denied, or He must be denatured so we can enthrone ourselves while still claiming to recognize Him. ”
Kenneth Minogue, “Christophobia and the West,”
Christophobia





12.“We Americans are heading into a "crisis of foundations" of our own right now. Our judicial elites, with politicians and pundits close behind, are already at work deconstructing our most fundamental institutions — marriage, the family, religion, equality under law. “
Column on the human sciences


And so it has been, even before Franklin Roosevel gave his imprimatur to Soviet Communism, and Joseph Stalin, 'Uncle Joe.'

 

[Muhammed]

'alleged' religion? The beliefs of a billion people don't qualify it as a religion?

Numbers are irrelevant. One solitary person can create a religion. If nobody else in the universe ever adheres to the tenants of that religion or shares his faith or religious beliefs, it's nonetheless a religion.

The fucking fabulous founding father first amendment fanatics who purposefully and presciently proposed and passed the first amendment to the US constitution clearly communicated to us that it's not the government's purview to establish what is or is not religious in nature.

Whether or whether not something like a megalith with the ten commandments chiseled into it on the courthouse grounds promotes a religion is not for the government to decide. 1st amendment says that congress shall make NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

Nor is it up to the government to decide whether one entity or another should be exempt from taxes based on whether or is not it's owned by a religious group. It's simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. What is the basis for believing that a politician, a bureaucrat, …..a judge….has a more valid view of right and wrong, or of justice, or of morality, than you or I???

I certainly don’t subscribe to that view.

The ‘law,’ it seems is all about telling all how to behave, and to think.





“ The function of law in a society, at least a democratic society, is to express, cultivate, and enforce the values of the society as understood by the majority of its people.

In our society today, this function has been perverted. Much of our most basic law, largely taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives by the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution.

The system of decentralized representative self-government with separation of powers created by the Constitution has been converted by the Court into government on basic issues of domestic social policy by a tiny judicial oligarchy—by majority vote of a committee of nine lawyers, unelected and holding office for life, making policy decisions for the nation as a whole from Washington, D.C.”
Lino A. Graglia, A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




What is the reason that Liberals are afraid to do the study that would equip them to confront their elites, judges, credentialed experts???

 

[alang1216]

'alleged' religion? The beliefs of a billion people don't qualify it as a religion?

Numbers are irrelevant. One solitary person can create a religion. If nobody else in the universe ever adheres to the tenants of that religion or shares his faith or religious beliefs, it's nonetheless a religion.

The fucking fabulous founding father first amendment fanatics who purposefully and presciently proposed and passed the first amendment to the US constitution clearly communicated to us that it's not the government's purview to establish what is or is not religious in nature.

Whether or whether not something like a megalith with the ten commandments chiseled into it on the courthouse grounds promotes a religion is not for the government to decide. 1st amendment says that congress shall make NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

Nor is it up to the government to decide whether one entity or another should be exempt from taxes based on whether or is not it's owned by a religious group. It's simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious.

So no group/religion should be tax exempt? How about charities and other non-profits?

 

[PoliticalChic]

'alleged' religion? The beliefs of a billion people don't qualify it as a religion?

Numbers are irrelevant. One solitary person can create a religion. If nobody else in the universe ever adheres to the tenants of that religion or shares his faith or religious beliefs, it's nonetheless a religion.

The fucking fabulous founding father first amendment fanatics who purposefully and presciently proposed and passed the first amendment to the US constitution clearly communicated to us that it's not the government's purview to establish what is or is not religious in nature.

Whether or whether not something like a megalith with the ten commandments chiseled into it on the courthouse grounds promotes a religion is not for the government to decide. 1st amendment says that congress shall make NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

Nor is it up to the government to decide whether one entity or another should be exempt from taxes based on whether or is not it's owned by a religious group. It's simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious.

Then along came judges who decided that the Constitution is simply a suggestion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. Judicial arrogance has become de rigeuer in America.



a. Wm Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, puts activism in the correct perspective:

“…[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers ofthe covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country.” http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



b. “Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices.” Lino Graglia, Law Professor




c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes



I believe I’ve proven my point.

 

[Muhammed]

'alleged' religion? The beliefs of a billion people don't qualify it as a religion?

Numbers are irrelevant. One solitary person can create a religion. If nobody else in the universe ever adheres to the tenants of that religion or shares his faith or religious beliefs, it's nonetheless a religion.

The fucking fabulous founding father first amendment fanatics who purposefully and presciently proposed and passed the first amendment to the US constitution clearly communicated to us that it's not the government's purview to establish what is or is not religious in nature.

Whether or whether not something like a megalith with the ten commandments chiseled into it on the courthouse grounds promotes a religion is not for the government to decide. 1st amendment says that congress shall make NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

Nor is it up to the government to decide whether one entity or another should be exempt from taxes based on whether or is not it's owned by a religious group. It's simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious.

So no group/religion should be tax exempt? How about charities and other non-profits?

Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

What part of my statement....

"It's simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious."

.... are you having trouble understanding?

 

[alang1216]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

Was he the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?


Was the quote I provided accurate?


Are you a moron?




That would be three 'yeses.'

 

[alang1216]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

Was he the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?


Was the quote I provided accurate?


Are you a moron?




That would be three 'yeses.'

Very weak, even for you. Today does NOT equate to 100+ years ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

Was he the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?


Was the quote I provided accurate?


Are you a moron?








That would be three 'yeses.'

Very weak, even for you. Today does NOT equate to 100+ years ago.

Prove it.

 

[alang1216]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

Was he the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?


Was the quote I provided accurate?


Are you a moron?








That would be three 'yeses.'

Very weak, even for you. Today does NOT equate to 100+ years ago.

Prove it.

Prove it? No thanks, you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today, yet you offered no proof. I'd say the onus is on you to provide evidence or proof.

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. This is the position of judges today:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.” Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

I believe I’ve proven my point.

More distortions of history. Charles Evans Hughes was on the SCOTUS before WW1 so he hardly is an authority on the position of judges today.

Was he the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?


Was the quote I provided accurate?


Are you a moron?








That would be three 'yeses.'

Very weak, even for you. Today does NOT equate to 100+ years ago.

Prove it.

Prove it? No thanks, you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today, yet you offered no proof. I'd say the onus is on you to provide evidence or proof.

"...you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today,..."


It is.

 

[alang1216]

"...you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today,..."

It is.

And we just have to take your word for it? Nothing from a SCOTUS judge from, say, this century?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today,..."

It is.

And we just have to take your word for it? Nothing from a SCOTUS judge from, say, this century?

"And we just have to take your word for it?"


Begin with this fact: I am never wrong.

And try to be more accurate.....never use "we" when you mean "I."
"We" all know that there will never be an organization dumb enough to elect you to speak for them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today,..."

It is.

And we just have to take your word for it? Nothing from a SCOTUS judge from, say, this century?

" Regardless, the sexual revolution marches on and the Left’s definition of “civil rights” has expanded—not only does it prohibit class-based discrimination in places of public accommodation, it now requires conscription into the revolution itself.

...it’s no longer enough for employees to have access to low-cost contraceptives and abortifacients. .... employers must provide them free of charge.


It’s no longer enough for bakers, florists, and photographers to provide service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They must participate in and facilitate any kind of action or ceremony their customers desire—no matter how offensive to their beliefs—so long as those ceremonies further the ideals of the sexual revolutionaries.




Under pressure from activists and the national media, Indiana modified its law to state that it could not authorize a provider to deny services to anyone on the basis of multiple protected criteria, including race, sex, and sexual orientation."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles
The Battle of Indiana and the Promise of Battles to Come



No longer is it enough for the Left that every other citizen be non-judgmental, no matter how bizarre their practices.....

...now every citizen must praise same, or actually part-take.....

Pretty much the antithesis of liberty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...you made the assertion that the Hughes quote is the position of judges today,..."

It is.

And we just have to take your word for it? Nothing from a SCOTUS judge from, say, this century?

...the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles
The Battle of Indiana and the Promise of Battles to Come


In its demands that everyone accept their views.....