SCOTUS Same Sex Marriage Decision: When Injustice Looks, Smells And Has The Color Of Law

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” –President Thomas Jefferson

There are many in America who are acting as if they were surprised to see what decision the Supreme Court would come out with concerning a redefinition of marriage. This decision was brought about by 5 attorneys who are unelected by the people.

The courts have shown once again their utter disregard for the republic and the rule of God’s moral law (Common Law) by advocating what God clearly condemns (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Roman 1:24).

These injustices are acting outside of their scope of authority, as well as engaging in anything but “good behavior.” It is the duty of the judges to discover and apply, not to legislate from the bench.

Their recent decision redefining marriage to include sodomites has never occurred in the history of mankind! So, what is it really all about? Look to Canada.

Speaking of sodomy-based “marriage,” what would America expect from a radical lesbian named Elena Kagan, who is known for “queerifying Harvard,” as to how she would vote? I warned in December of 2012 that “Elena Kagan had never judged a case a day in her life; yet Obama, unqualified for office himself, has seen fit to ‘qualify’ her on the Supreme Court bench – just in time for the Court to review homosexual marriage.”

What is even more amazing to me is the fact that the 78% of Americans who call themselves Christians apparently do not even know what The Bible declares! It is amazing to see what they tolerate (1 John 2:4).

Furthermore, to allow the Supreme Court to rule by oligarchy is illegal. They are allowing less than 1.6% of the population to dictate “law” to everyone else.

This is the same court that voted to allow the murder of the innocent in the womb, calling it a woman’s “choice” (Proverbs 6:17).

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if not proclaiming her utter disregard in Egypt for the American Constitution, blurts out the truth in her confusion, saying she was “under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it ‘populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’”

Friends, she should have been impeached and indicted right then and there, according to Article 3, Section 1 of The United States Constitution.

America, from where is the Supreme Court deriving all of this unconstitutional power from? They are doing it based on the ignorance of the American people!

Americans are still under the delusion that the Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and that whatever the Supreme Court decides is going to be the law of the land. That’s completely wrong!

Did you know that in many schools across the country, you were required to pass Bible courses before you could graduate high school? All the way up until 1962, prayer was the norm for virtually every school in America; and the Ten Commandments were posted in school hallways.

In 1980, the Ten Commandments were taken out of the schools in the case of Stone v. Graham. The Court made the following statement:

If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments… [which] is not a permissible state objective.

In other words, the Supreme Court helps to advocate crimes rather than prevent them (Psalm 19:11).

The Supreme Court has a lawful obligation and duty to execute judgment upon crime, not to encourage it (Isaiah 51).

This is the same court that has transgressed its delegated authority over and over again (Psalm 94:20; Isaiah 5:20; Psalm 2).

“…the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”— Thomas Jefferson

The new Supreme Court seems to be set in place to destroy rather than preserve. It consists of teachers attempting to train up America’s posterity by tearing down the American Constitution and creating one in their own image (Jeremiah 5:31).

“It has been said that to take all the robes of all the good judges that ever lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge.”–Henry Ward Beecher

How about 9 corrupt judges?

Interestingly enough, over the head of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. there is a huge engraving of Moses with the Ten Commandments in his hands. The inscription under Moses states: “Justice the Guardian of Liberty.” Our founders have laid in stone a truth that reproves those who sit in the Supreme Court chambers this day, and it would serve the American people well to do the same.

“If the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what The Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (Under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” -President Andrew Jackson

Vetting The Supreme Court

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

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

Supreme Court Makes A Major Gun Ruling That Will Have The NRA Cheering

The National Rifle Association is publicly supporting the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision to allow convicted felons to attempt to sell any firearms taken by law enforcement. The decision came in response to a case involving former U.S. Border Patrol agent Tony Henderson, whose 19 guns were confiscated by the FBI upon his arrest on drug charges.

Following his guilty plea, Henderson was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms; however, he did not want to simply lose the roughly $3,500 his gun collection was worth. He petitioned a lower court in an effort to allow a third party to take possession of the guns and attempt to sell them on his behalf. That effort was unsuccessful at every stage of appeal up to the Supreme Court level.

The NRA had a vested interest in the case and publicly advocated on behalf of Henderson’s cause.

According to Associated Press reporter Sam Hananel, the pro-gun organization “argued that the government’s attempt to prohibit any sale or transfer prevents law-abiding citizens who want to buy the guns from doing so.”

Though certain aspects of the case warranted clarification, the panel ultimately agreed that convicted felons should be permitted to attempt selling property confiscated by authorities.

Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the decision that this change is in no way an invitation for a felon to bypass existing law “by arranging a sham transfer that leaves him in effective control of his guns.”

Should individuals convicted of a felony be able to try to sell guns they owned prior to their conviction? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

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

Supremes Contemplate Making War Against Heaven

The Supreme Court declared, “We are a Christian people…according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with the reverence the duty of obedience to God.” –United States v. Macintosh (1931)

While there are some American people who are ignorantly anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision on what its definition of marriage is, it is important to remember that the job of the Supreme Court justices is to discover written law and apply written law. They are not there to legislate or to activate; nor is it their business to redefine what they do not agree with when it come to the One who gave law.

In essence, they have no business attempting to redefine marriage (Ephesians 5:31).

The people in this country are not ruled by the Supreme Court.  We are all ruled by the Lawgiver, and that includes the Supreme Court (Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 9:6).

“No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” – Judge William Blackstone

The black-robed tyrants are like a bunch of pigeons picking at peas. They pick the cases they do not want to hear and choose the ones they do. It is their duty and obligation to interpret law against crime, not promote crime (1 Peter 2:14).

Every step of the way, the states have combated and ignored the established laws concerning marriage in an attempt to overthrow America’s sovereignty.

We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]” –John Hancock

There has never been, and never will be, marriage that is based on sodomy. It is an institution that belongs exclusively to the Church and not to the state. God-ordained marriage cannot be changed regardless of what the people or the judges may say or what the people want if contrary to God’s moral law.

Furthermore, when you look to Canada, you can see this has everything to do with giving way to the sodomites while giving permission to attack and assail anyone and everyone who disagrees with their abominable behavior. This includes telling the Church whom they have to marry; telling homeschoolers that they can no longer teach their children that sodomites are an abomination; and even going so far as to attempt to lower the age of anal consent from 16 years old to 14 years old. What does that have to do with marriage? Nothing (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Roman 1:24).

As the Supreme Court looks at the issue of redefining marriage, the first “sodomite president” Barack Obama and his administration have already asked and gotten the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

Of course, to do that, Obama had to set the stage. He repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and placed 225 homosexuals in key positions. Then he appointed a radical lesbian to the bench of the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan.

Elena Kagan is the former dean of Students at Harvard. Contrary to Harvard’s founding mottos, “For Christ and the Church” and “For the glory of Christ,” Kagan is known for “Queerifying Harvard.”

During her tenure, she did the following:

  • Kagan hired former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory, in which he taught courses on taking up new identities such as bisexuality, transgender f**k, involving polygamy, sadomasochism, and the sexuality of minors.
  • Kagan also hired other radicals (a lesbian and a transsexual) to teach transgender law courses, as well as Cass Sunstein, who has written in support of polygamy and free-for-all marriage relationships.
  • Kagan viciously attacked our military in opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” even banning military recruiters from coming on campus. Kagan’s attempt to ban the recruiters was unsuccessful; and even after losing her legal campaign, she encouraged students to continue protesting them.
  • Kagan’s radical activism on campus was so toxic that there was even a campaign to make the entire university trans-inclusive, using Harvard’s “gender identity” non-discrimination policy to spew gender confusion among students on campus.

Elena Kagan has never judged a case a day in her life. Yet, Obama, unqualified for office himself, has seen fit to “qualify” her for the Supreme Court.

America needs to come to terms and understand that no president, no administration, and no Supreme Court has a right to break God’s laws.

America, your only hope is responding to the crimes of those who believe that they are above the law, which they are not. Impeachment and indictment are the rightful remedies for such criminals, found in Article 2, Sections 4, and Article 3, Section 1 of our Constitution.

“If the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” President Andrew Jackson

As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord (Joshua 24:15)!

To Spit Against Heaven

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

Pretended Legislation Through Assault

“I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.”

- Chai Feldblum, an open Lesbian who was nominated to serve as a Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Barack Hussein Obama

This morning, the Supreme Court once again usurped their authority by committing an abomination (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9, Romans 1:24, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Jude 1:7) when unlawfully wading outside of their jurisdiction and meddling with the God-ordained definition of marriage. A 5-4 ruling has overturned key parts of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). The Supreme Court also dismissed an appeal made by 7 million people of California who twice voted to ban homosexual marriage in their state (Prop 8), claiming their appeal “has no standing.”

Let’s look at a timeline of events leading to today’s ruling:

  • In January 2009, Obama becomes president of these United States. He vows to fundamentally transform America.
  • 2009 – Obama appoints at least 224 homosexuals and transvestites into key positions in government.
  • May 2010 – Obama nominates former Dean of Harvard Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court bench, a radical lesbian who had never judged a case a day in her life, and who was known for “queerifying Harvard.”
  • Feb. 2011 – Obama declares DOMA unconstitutional and directs the Department of Justice to stop defending the law in court.
  • July 2011 – Obama supports Dianne Feinstein’s bill to repeal DOMA.
  • Feb. 2012 – US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules CA Proposition 8 unconstitutional
  • May 2012 – Obama publically endorses homosexual marriage, and is declared America’s “first gay president” by Newsweek.
  • Dec. 2012 – US Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on DOMA and Prop 8.
  • Feb. 2013 – US military extends some benefits to homosexual partners.
  • April 2013 – Obama spends $350 million on sexual indoctrination curriculum for children, teaching that the only “unsafe” sex is becoming pregnant.
  • June 2013 – Supreme Court rules in line with the Obama administration’s radical ideology being forced upon America for the past 4 years.

It is clear to see that this was a planned agenda aimed at fundamentally destroying, not transforming, America. Does Michael Swift’s supposedly satirical “Gay Manifesto” raise serious red flags to anyone?

Just like Roe v. Wade, this immoral, unconstitutional, and unlawful decision was against the will of the people. If the Supreme Court is left unchecked, this decision will bring about another bout of devastation and destruction to America – especially the young generation.

America has been forewarned

America has been forewarned in the past concerning homosexual marriage. Canadian Archbishop Prendergast spoke at St. Thomas University in Minneapolis, Minnesota, warning Americans of the consequences of forced homosexual marriage upon the Canadian populace.

For example, for simply writing a letter defining Catholic teaching on homosexual marriage, Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, Alberta, was called up before the Human Rights Commission in 2005.  Bishop Henry’s complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff who admitted that he only filed the complaint to get media attention.

During his speech, Archbishop Prendergast quoted Henry as saying, “Human rights laws designed as a shield are now being used as a sword. The issue is rarely truth formation, but rather censorship, and applying a particular theology through threats, sanctions, and punitive measures.”

The Archbishop went on to note the consequences of homosexual marriage in Canada:

- restrictions on freedoms

- forced sex education

- sexually confused children

- sexual experimentation among children

- muzzling and debilitating the Church

- more births out of wedlock

- more in vitro fertilizations

- more abortions

- more poverty

- more misery

- more disease

- more addictions

- higher health care costs

 

In Canada the radicals have sought to lower the age of consent to 14 years old for anal intercourse. What does this have to do with homosexual marriage?

Absolutely everything.

As mentioned earlier, Obama already spent $350 million on a sexualized curriculum, called the Personal Responsibility Education Program. The minds of America’s children will be raped of their innocence as they undergo sexual indoctrination.

America, simply put, this is criminal.

Government, including the Supreme Court, does not have executive, legislative, or judicial powers to break the laws of our Constitutional Republic. Today’s ruling is pretended legislation.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” – Chief Justice Marshall

 

Think Overturning Doma is bad? You should see what MSNBC and Rachel Maddow did to Bradlee Dean. Help his lawsuit against them. Stand for America and get your free gift.<