26 Jun 2015

Scalia Nails It

, ,

judicialtyranny

From Justice Scalia’s dissent:

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

StumbleUpon.com
3 Feedbacks on "Scalia Nails It"

SDD

That sound you hear is James Madison weeping over the death of his Constitution. He made it last longer than any other by being so specific, but ultimately it was no match for those who claim they know better.



gonewiththewind

There is a “quickening” of the attacks on the constitution and our freedoms. It could simply be coincidence that multiple special interest groups are using courts and legislatures to achieve their goals at the same time. Or it could be a concerted effort, kind of a sprint to the finish line in the race to destroy the country.



Jerry the Geek

So, which is it?

“That which is not specifically allowed, is prohibited” … which is the philosophy of those who would rule us.

Or …

“That which is not specifically prohibited, is allowed” … which is the philosophy who will not be ruled.



Comments

Please Leave a Comment!




Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.






















Feeds
Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark