U.S. Supreme Court Justices Who Performed Same Sex Marriages Should Recuse Or Be Impeached

Within the last couple of years of our nation’s 239-year history, left-wing lawyers clothed in black robes have imposed their twisted view of law and morality on the country with breathtaking speed. As recently as 2010, over two-thirds of these United States had banned homosexual marriage, with Americans overwhelmingly rejecting same-sex marriage at the ballot box. Incredibly, federal judges have arrogantly reversed the decisions of voters in most of those states, leaving just five states nationwide with bans in place, undisturbed by court ruling. (There are 13 states in which homosexual marriage is still banned. However, for eight of those states, courts have overturned the bans but have stayed their reversal until appeals have run.)

And now, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to void the few remaining pro-traditional marriage laws, nationwide.

How did a country, founded on religious freedom by largely God-fearing, Bible-reading patriots reach this point? First, despite the federal judiciary’s near full-body embrace of homosexual marriage, such sexual couplings are not equally accepted by ordinary Americans. To be sure, attitudes are changing – in part due to the increasing inclination to look to “the civil law” rather than God for morality – but the American people by and large reject the idea that any marriage other than that of one man to one woman is a good idea.

The elites have a completely different view. All one need do is look at Hollywood’s hyper-evangelical effort to indoctrinate television viewers and moviegoers through the ubiquitous insertion of out-of-place subplots portraying loving, happy homosexuals. One can’t even enjoy watching the apocalyptic showdown between remnants of the human race and hordes of zombies in AMC’s blockbuster The Walking Dead without being interrupted by homosexual passion.

The news media plays the same game, with its unrelenting agenda to force cultural acceptance of homosexual marriage. From the predictable prophets of the left, to those who we had once thought were on the right like Fox’s Shepard Smith, almost all champion homosexuality and suggest no qualitative or moral difference between heterosexual and same-sex marriage. “Family friendly” drag queen contests on military posts sponsored by federal dollars are celebrated. Families with children raised by transgender, bisexual, or homosexual parents are presented as normal. Counseling to address gender identity issues or same-sex attraction is trashed as unscientific and hateful – even, in some places like California, outlawed altogether.

Political elites – both Democrats and Republicans – are no different. Republicans like Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner will occasionally throw a rhetorical bone to their constituents on the issue, but they’ll never direct real political capital toward efforts to promote traditional marriage or to preserve states’ rights on the issue. Looking at the number of homosexuals working as congressional staff, the acceptance of federal efforts to celebrate homosexuality, and other telling factors, all reflect where the political elites are personally on this issue. And their wholesale silence over the impending Supreme Court decision on homosexual marriage is especially telling.

In the face of a population that has historically embraced traditional marriage and rejected same-sex relationships, what has empowered the homosexual-pushing political and media elites to such an extent that allies of true marriage are running for cover?

Without a doubt, there are a number of enablers; but the federal judiciary is a central driver. As other articles (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part VI) in the “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage” series have convincingly explained, the federal judiciary has largely abandoned any pretext of following the drafters’ intent with respect to the Constitution and its Amendments as applied to same-sex marriage. Apparently, these judges believe the oath they have taken requires no deference to the Constitution’s plain meaning.

Granted, some judges believe that they are compelled to follow the dictates of superior (higher) courts, even if those decisions violate the written Constitution. This is a poor excuse, as the judge’s oath is to the Constitution, not to some twisted interpretation of it. While indefensible, this approach stands in contrast to the illegitimacy of other members of the federal judiciary who spin dozens of pages of judicial decisions, ginning up creative and largely illogical reasons for why constitutional language – drafted when homosexuality was criminalized throughout the United States – somehow now compels protection of same-sex marriage and sodomy.

What is even more troublesome are those Justices who have such zeal for the homosexual agenda that they have made supportive public statements and have even voluntarily officiated at homosexual marriages – despite knowing that the question of homosexual marriage would be presented before them for future decision.

There is a Code of Conduct under which federal judges – including U.S. Supreme Court Justices – are bound to comply. (Justice Kennedy stated on March 14, 2013 that he and the other justices of the Supreme Court consider the Code of Conduct to be “absolutely binding.”) Canon 3A(6) of that Code of Conduct requires that a judge “not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” Canon 2A of the same Code provides that a judge “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Finally, a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), further mandates that a federal judge “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have violated these standards. Both justices have presided over same-sex weddings despite their knowledge of pending federal homosexual marriage cases. Justice Ginsburg has been especially vocal, stating in August 2013 regarding an impending homosexual marriage she was presiding over in Washington, D.C., that “I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in a marriage relationship.”

Again, this past February, Justice Ginsburg said that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to accept homosexual marriage:

“The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous. In recent years, people have said, ‘This is the way I am.’ And others looked around, and we discovered it’s our next-door neighbor – we’re very fond of them. Or it’s our child’s best friend, or even our child. I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us.”

In response to these pro-homosexual marriage statements and actions, a number of conservative groups contended that Justice Ginsburg’s bias on the issue had been publicly and conclusively established, and demanded that she not participate in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Foundation for Moral Law, which filed an amicus brief in support of traditional marriage, also filed a thoughtful Motion for Recusal in the U.S. Supreme Court in April; but the motion has yet to appear on the Court’s Docket Sheet for the case. Instead, ex-ACLU attorney Justice Ginsburg doubled-down, marrying two men in New York City just last month. According to the New York Times, the Justice made a bit of a spectacle of her support for same-sex marriage during this recent ceremony:

“[T]he most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

“But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted . . . Justice Ginsburg [later] reigned as belle of the same-sex ball.”

How Justice Ginsburg – whom the left describes as “brilliant” – could think that such actions and past statements would not raise obvious questions of partiality in a case involving the U.S. Constitution and homosexual marriage is especially troubling. And yet she has aggressively continued her participation in Obergefell v. Hodges as reflected by her active engagement in the case’s oral argument just several weeks ago.

Similarly, Justice Kagan’s voluntary officiation over a homosexual marriage (involving her former law clerk) – although arguably less public than her colleague’s antics – also causes her “impartiality [to] reasonably be questioned.”

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp (486 U.S. 847, 869-870) quoted Justice Frankfurter, explaining that the “‘guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.’” Here, appearance and fact are consonant: Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are vested in their same-sex marriage positions. This partiality also raises real concerns of whether the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges can receive due process from those who have demonstrated bias.

So what can be done about Justices who ignore the ethical standards in violation of the judicial Code of Conduct and who violate a federal statute barring their participation in a “proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned”? Obviously, there is no court above the U.S. Supreme Court from which discipline may be applied. Nor is there a mechanism by which other justices can vote a biased colleague off a case. Internal policing doesn’t appear to be working in Obergefell v. Hodges, even though a number of justices have previously disqualified themselves from cases in which they have vested interests or have made public comments.

The only answer for justices who blatantly violate their Code of Conduct, federal law, and their oaths of office is impeachment and removal. Regrettably, a Republican-controlled Congress, more concerned about rescuing Obamacare than resisting yet another activist attack on the Constitution, offers little hope. Unless and until Members of Congress demonstrate real fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, no Ruling Class politicos in either party can be trusted–and none should be supported–by those who seek to restore liberty to our nation.

__________________________

Joe Miller graduated from West Point in the top 1 percent of the Class of 1989. He then served as an armor officer with the 1st Infantry Division, seeing combat in Desert Storm and receiving the Bronze Star and Meritorious Service Medal. After active duty, Joe attended Yale Law School where he earned his Juris Doctorate. He also holds a Master’s Degree in Economics from the University of Alaska. Following his move to Alaska at the age of 30, he was appointed as a State Magistrate (the youngest then serving in Alaska), then appointed an Acting State District Court Judge and, shortly thereafter, U.S. Magistrate Judge in Fairbanks. Again, he had the distinction of being the youngest then serving in that federal position, in the nation. On August 24, 2010, he defeated incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaskan Republican Primary, only to lose a contentious three-way general election. Joe is currently the President of Restoring Liberty, is the radio host of the daily Joe Miller Show, and practices law. He and his wife Kathleen have been married for 23 years and live with their children in Fairbanks, Alaska.

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” To enable this important work to continue, contributions may be made to the U.S. Justice Foundation.  Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Is Joe Miller Really A Christian?

Is Joe Miller Really A Christian?

As I travel across the State of Alaska, people often ask me, “Joe, are you a Christian?” Most people know my conservative principles, but they don’t know my heart. So, I want to take the occasion to share a little bit of my story with you that I have shared in small group settings . . .

***

My car slammed into a tree, crossed a four lane road, and ended up in the middle of the railroad tracks. By all accounts, I should have been dead.

With a massive headache, over 30 years ago as a teenager, I woke up on a hard cot in a cold jail cell, desperately hoping I was dreaming. I thought I could occasionally dance with the devil and not pay for it, but my luck had run out.

I grew up with five sisters and one brother. Although we were poor, I was raised in a loving Christian home. Our father was the pastor of an independent church; and we had a stay-at-home mom, focused on raising her family.

In grade school, I had a very visible deformity on my lip from an accident when I was six and was often teased by other children. The continuous ridicule, rejection, and bullying made me feel insecure. Because my parents couldn’t afford health insurance or surgery to take care of my lip, I mowed lawns and did other work to pay for the surgery myself. However, I still felt like I had to compete in order to have self value; and I ended up making some poor choices.

My parents had no idea that I started partying in high school. And then came disaster. The morning that I woke up on the hard cot in the cold jail cell with a massive headache, lonely and afraid, I could only do one thing: cry out to God. I was flat on my face, broken. I prayed, “Lord, I desperately need you. I cannot live without your presence.” I confessed my sins and gave myself wholly to Jesus Christ. And He revolutionized my life.

From that day on, I have never been the same. The Lord turned the bad into good (Romans 8:28), and I graduated from my high school class of more than 200 as valedictorian. He has blessed me with many other accomplishments. You can read more of what God has done in my life by clicking HERE.

Most importantly, he blessed me with an incredible wife and eight wonderful children and, as of last December, a beautiful grandson!

Am I perfect? Of course not! Have I made mistakes? Absolutely. The most important lesson I learned was after making a mistake, which we all do, is to confess and move on.

As the Apostle Paul said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” (1 Tim. 1:15; 1 John 4:8). In other words, Paul was saying “I am not better than you.”

Not only has Christ’s sacrifice on the cross proved sufficient for me; he also helps me every day to deal with unjust attacks and is even helping me to love the people who speak and write them.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

GOP Establishment About To Be Caught With Pants Down





Photo credit: Ryan McFarland (Creative Commons)

A story this past week was titled, “Why Joe Miller Could Pull off an Upset Against the GOP Establishment, Again.” An interview with the Tea Party Express also published last week noted, “Joe Miller Has a Proven History of Challenging the Status Quo and Taking on the GOP Establishment.”

Yet another story last week read, “The big upset could happen in Alaska.” Based on Facebook modeling to predict election outcomes, this article contended we are in a dead heat with incumbent Senator Mark Begich.

The authors of the study examined not simply the number of “Likes,” but the interaction each candidate’s page had, including the number of shares, comments, and engagement with others about it; in other words, factors reflecting the general excitement and involvement with the candidate and the issues he represents.

All this is extremely encouraging and mirrors what our campaign has been seeing on the ground as we meet with Alaskans in homes and businesses throughout the state. People are motivated and ready to take action because they realize the whole future of the country is at stake.

So high a price has been paid, by so many, to get us to this point in our nation’s history, it would defy the true American spirit to not respond to our country in this time of need.

Reminiscing on the Revolutionary War, John Adams determined about one-third of the citizens were for the Revolution, one-third were neutral, and one-third were against it. That one-third of freedom-loving Americans carried the day and brought the fruits of liberty to all. It was an upset victory against the Establishment for the ages, and so began the story of the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Like many of you, I became increasingly alarmed, shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in and he and the Democratically-controlled Congress sought to “fundamentally transform” America. People of common sense rose up in response to the $1 trillion stimulus bill, followed by the push to pass ObamaCare. These modern day patriots organized, educated their fellow citizens, and went to the polls. The result was Republicans regaining control of the House and ending the Democratic filibuster-proof Senate.

Republicans have had some success slowing down the transformation, but those who seek true reform are gravely outnumbered. Further, the Obama Administration has chosen time-and-again to disregard the Constitution and go around Congress. Harry Reid, Mark Begich, and the Democratic Senate have been complicit in these egregious acts by the Executive Branch by refusing to hold him accountable. Worse, they enabled even more abuse of executive power by voting for the “nuclear option,” ending the minority party’s right to filibuster when the President puts forward extreme nominees to hold positions of trust.

Further, this past week we had the third ranking member of the Senate, Chuck Schumer from New York, calling on Barack Obama to use the IRS to shut down the Tea Party. He truly has no shame or respect for Americans’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly.

It is time to advance the work begun in 2010 and regain control of the Senate, retaking it with true reformers committed to a fundamental restoration of America, so the victory is worth the price.

For more information, click here.

Let’s begin to write the closing lines to this bizarre chapter in American history and write it in such a way the future generations will look back on what we did here with pride and thankfulness.

Photo credit: Ryan McFarland (Creative Commons)




Video: Ruling Class On Track To Destroy Middle America In 2013

It’s time for us in the middle class to get smart — the debt is going to destroy us, possibly in 2013. And both parties are making sure of this.

My Verdict: Obamacare Unconstitutional!

Holder Explains Obamacare Constitutionality SC My Verdict: Obamacare Unconstitutional!

Thursday’s shocking Obamacare decision caused me to reminisce about my time on the federal bench ten years ago.  When I was a United States Magistrate Judge, I took the same oath of office that every federal judge and justice in the country swears to.  I swore to “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 oath is anchored to the phrase, “Constitution of the United States.” If the Constitution changes over time by an activist majority of the Supreme Court, then my oath was essentially an oath to the Supreme Court, not to the Constitution. Of course, that’s not what the Founders intended. The Supreme Court was never designed to be the pinnacle of federal power.

But that’s where we are today. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005, wrote the 5-4 opinion saving Obamacare and causing President Obama to declare “victory” and pundits to say that his administration has been “vindicated.”  Incredibly, Roberts determined that the government, under its taxing power, has the right to “impos[e] a tax on those who do not buy [a] product,” in this case, health insurance.*

From the bench Thursday, Justice Kennedy issued a scathing denuciation of Robert’s reconstruction of Obamacare:  “The majority rewrites the statute Congress wrote … What Congress called a penalty, the court calls a tax.”  He concluded that “The law is invalid in its entirety.”

The chief justice’s rescue of the individual mandate is a massive expansion of federal power, now permitting the federal government to regulate, by taxation, its citizens’ “failure to act” or passivity.  I challenge you to go back to the first 150 years of U.S. jurisprudence and find any Supreme Court opinion that would suggest such a construction of Congress’s power to tax and spend under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

In his powerful dissent, Justice Scalia agreed that this power grab was unconstitutional:

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States.

And then the zinger:

Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal  Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

In other words, when the federal government is allowed to tax non-activity, what powers are left to the states and the people under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?  Not much.

But even more basically, Roberts and the four more liberal members of the bench are all starting with the assumption that the federal government can tax and spend for things outside of its enumerated powers, misconstruing the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. James Madison apparently disagreed, suggesting that the clause “amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section.”

Not anchoring the general welfare clause to the enumerated powers enables virtually unlimited federal spending/taxation power and is completely contrary to the whole nature of the Constitution: a document designed to restrain the federal government, retaining all unspecified powers to the states and people.

The Roberts decision reflects that any faith in the Supreme Court to solve our nation’s problems is misplaced. We must engage like never before. Reject the LSM, rely on solid Internet news sources, support a Tea Party congressional candidate, engage in vote integrity efforts, and reflect upon the moral crisis we’re facing. A massive victory in November will put today’s defeat in the proper dustbin of history.  But unless we rapidly correct the downward spiral, there won’t be much left for future generations.

***

Author’s note:  To his credit, Chief Justice Roberts did reject the Commerce Clause as constitutional authority for Obamacare.

Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Related posts:

  1. ObamaCare Is Officially An Unconstitutional Abomination by Dr. John A. Sparks One of the key provisions…
  2. Will Obama Defy Supreme Court If ObamaCare Is Ruled Unconstitutional? For 2 years, champions of ObamaCare have been careful to…