How Long, Indeed

Dc1Al
…The only question now is: How long will the people endure this tyranny of judges? The lawlessness that they exhibit in these rulings will one day catch up with them. If the rule of law is nothing more than the rule of the powerful, what is to stop the people from marching on court houses and throwing judges out on the street? Why is Justice Kennedy’s bogus reading of the Constitution any more binding than the real one? The Court will one day find itself no more protected than marriage.

The Pit At The End Of The Rainbow

47 responses to “How Long, Indeed

  1. “….what is to stop the people from….”
    ====================

    The public indoctrination centers in combination with the gov’t-media complex has taken advantage of a human weakness, “laziness”, in creating a nation of mostly obese, lazy, and stupid slobs that would rather hover over a plate of Little Debbie’s snack cakes than spend even one second thinking about what they are giving up.

    Overt sloth.

    There may be a handful of thinkers assembling now and then but there will never be any substantial uprising.

    Prepare for your own personal revolution, where you individually claim your freedom from all tyrants everywhere, no matter one or many try to defeat you, because THAT is where your future lies.

    They are coming, for you.

  2. One trick pony here…so what’s the problem? That’s Rule of Law. Oh, maybe I shouldn’t use a contraction—that IS Rule of Law.

    “But that’s not what our Founders intended.” Okay. “But that’s not a civil approach to Rule of Law.” Alright. “But that’s not what any of us mean when we say ‘Rule of Law’.” No doubt true.

    Big deal. THINGS ARE AS THEY ARE, NOT AS WE IMAGINE THEM TO BE. And that–this ruling, the bankrupting of the country, the imprisonment of non-forceful people, the murder of innocent Marines–those are all Rule of Law. So was everything Hitler did, and Stalin and Pol Pot and every other maniac who led millions of people into committing the worst atrocities imaginable…every drop of it LEGAL.

    And otherwise intelligent and decent people say, “But that’s not what I want Rule of Law to be.” Tough shit—that’s what it IS. When you abdicate your mind and place imagination over identification…well, just take a glance around and see what you get.

    Now go ahead and tell me how it’s not about epistemology.

    • Great comment! We must define the difference between Legal and Lawful. Things can be legal yet not lawful, but not the other way around, right?

      • “We must define the difference between Legal and Lawful.”

        Sorry, I don’t get it. I take the two as synonymous, but maybe I’m missing something. I only care about what things are, not what we call them. Feel free to define to your heart’s content. Me, I’ll just keep identifying.

        • The Trainer

          “Lawful” actions can be “Legal,” but “Legal” isn’t always “Lawful”. Hitler’s moves in Germany were “legal” according to him and his people. They were anything but “lawful.”

          All something has to be to fit, “legal” is be passed by a level of government. For something to be “lawful” it must not be in contradiction with the Laws of Nature or nature’s God or, in our case, what has been instituted as the “Supreme Law of the Land,” the Constitution.

          Example: Abortion, as allowed and administered in our country is legal; it is certainly not “lawful.” as it takes the life of another without due process.

          • Thank you Trainer for your fine explanation on this, it is pretty important when thinking about these things. My understanding is just like yours.

            A solider may disobey an “unlawful” order even though it is perfectly legal to be ordered to carry out. Let us apply this, a solider/LEO is ordered to snatch you, hold you incommunicado for an indefinite time with no charges, all perfectly legal under NDAA and FISA yet absolutely unlawful.

            • Okay, thanks you two. It looks like “lawful” means “consistent with nature and/or morality,” while “legal” means “some declared authority said so.” I like that lingo. I guess I’ll be lawful till the day I die, but I’ll probably say it some other way.

          • The terms “Laws of Nature or nature’s God” and “natural law” are wishful thinking. You are wishing for a rule of law to be supplied by a magical government which does not have the flaws of all known real world governments. This is a circular argument in your attempt to apologize for government.

            It is equally fantasy to wish for Santa Claus to bring you an economic stimulus produced without human labor.

            • I don’t see where I am wishing for anything, “Natural law” has been recognized from the first societies of mankind, John Locke refers to this many times in Essay Concerning Human Understanding and the Second Treatise of Government and I believe had great influence on the wording of our Constitution.
              Where is it do you read in my comment I am apologizing for anything? Or speak of a magical government?
              If you have something to add to a conversation that’s great, why don’t you do that.

        • ” I only care about what things are, not what we call them. Feel free to define to your heart’s content. Me, I’ll just keep identifying.”

          Jim, please think that through.

          How do you “identify” anything without naming it? And can there be names without definitions?

          What things are, in their essence, their very being, can only be approximated with words, and words are fraught with interpretation… by individuals. As also are definitions and descriptions.

          All too slippery for your black and white wishful world.

  3. DWEEZIL THE WEASEL

    How long will the people endure the tyranny of judges? As long as the milk from the FEDGOV/STATEGOV teat keeps flowing. Amerika has been in the grip of a judicial dictatorship since Marbury v. Madison. The country has just been sipping the collectivist strychnine in small doses. Read HOLOGRAM OF LIBERTY by Kenneth Royce.

  4. Gary Smith

    Politics by other means. Same ole, same ole.

  5. Funny how a lot of people in the Liberty community claim to be anti-tyranny, then go about supporting tyranny by trying to tell two consenting adults what they are not allowed to do in the privacy of their own home. Seriously, why does a Bible-thumper in Texas care what a couple of gay guys in Vermont do? Why can’t they enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship like heterosexuals?

    Normally, I’d agree with the author’s viewpoint on judicial misconduct (the Obamacare ruling, anyone?) But on this issue, the author is wrong.

    • I must have mussed something here NJ, who is telling anyone what they can or can’t do in their home? Why do you think people of faith in Texas care what you do in Vermont or just how you do it? I think gay people can do a legally recognized relationship, the committed part is what?

      • Not saying anyone here specifically – just a viewpoint I’ve seen expressed somewhat frequently on various blogs, forums, etc.

        The most vehement opposition to gay marriage has come from so-called “people of faith”. I was raised Catholic. I believe in God, I believe Jesus died for our sins. I believe Jesus would be pretty disappointed seeing what the various religious institutions founded in his name have turned into. His greatest commandment was to love thy neighbor – how many of the “faithful” do the exact opposite?

        This is all besides the point, however. I don’t think religion should have any role in shaping American politics. All that leads to is a religious group attempting to implement their various laws/codes of behavior into actual law. Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom from religion.

        • Not saying anyone here specifically – just a viewpoint I’ve seen expressed somewhat frequently on various blogs, forums, etc.

          ((Of course as have I, yet I have also seen some pretty sick twisted garbage on gay sites, would not hold them up on a pedestal anytime soon, when they march hand and hand with Communist Party USA (and Occupy) to further their agenda they lose a lot of respect from me as to what they are all about.) )

          The most vehement opposition to gay marriage has come from so-called “people of faith”.

          ((Marriage is defined in the Bible as a union between a man and woman, it says one should not lay with one of the same sex. So it is to be expected would you not agree? I would be surprised to see a Godless
          Communist puke complaining much.))

          I was raised Catholic. I believe in God, I believe Jesus died for our sins. I believe Jesus would be pretty disappointed seeing what the various religious institutions founded in his name have turned into. His greatest commandment was to love thy neighbor – how many of the “faithful” do the exact opposite?

          ((I agree with you 100% on this statement, I don’t know how many do the “exact opposite”, those that do I would say are a bit lost in their faith.))

          This is all besides the point, however. I don’t think religion should have any role in shaping American politics. All that leads to is a religious group attempting to implement their various laws/codes of behavior into actual law. Freedom of religion also encompasses freedom from religion.

          ((I respectfully disagree with you an everything you say here. Why do you think the 10 Commandments are in may court rooms, it that a bad thing? Your statement too vague and general to address in a meaningful way, for me anyway. The Constitution says the “State” may not establish a religion and compel the “People” to adhere to it. It does not say religion shall play no part in the “State” concerning the way it governs. There are thousands of graves of men and women that have given their lives for our Freedom on state owned property, shall their crosses be removed? I feel you would say no, this is just an extreme example of how far we could carry a misinterpretation of our Constitution, the SCOTUS does it all the time as they have done here with DOMA.))

    • As one of those Texas Bible thumpers, let me respond. Two consenting adults can do whatever they want in their own home. But this court has taken decisions out of the hands of the people. I am now forced to pay my tax dollars to provide benefits to their lovers. No one was stopping them from living together. But now the rest of us are forced to support it or be labelled bigots. And you don’t have to be religious to realize homosexuality is a mental illness, not another form of normal.

      • I am wondering if you could give me some specific examples of how you are paying for this SCOTUS decision?
        Don’t let being called a bigot bother you, it is all they have. How do you determine being gay is a mental illness as apposed to a sexual preference?

        • This is all about money. Already a Federal judge has ordered government agencies in Detroit to start giving spousal benefits to gay partners. That is tax dollars, folks. It will be the same for any government family benefit such as government subsidized insurance, pensions, social security, medicare, survivor benefits, etc. And now the people are on the hook for paying these benefits because they are forced to legally recognize these relationships. They certainly do not get a vote. Prop 8 actually passed by a majority in that California election. But our “betters” are going to tell us how to act.
          Being gay is a mental illness and was recognized as such until the 1970’s. I don’t knock people for having the desire. I knock them for acting on it and I knock the rest of us for abandoning them and calling this normal. Well maybe people think since we have trouble curing it, it must be normal. Newsflash, there are all sorts of diseases we can only treat but cannot cure. Schizophrenia is the first that comes to mind but there is also Bipolar Disorder, Autism, Mental Retardation, etc. And these are all disorders of the mind and it does not even begin to touch on disease of other organs. We treat these things as best as we can and we do not run around calling them another type of normal. Once again, I don’t care what two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home. I do care that I am pressured to call it normal and I care that my tax dollars will subsidize it. Yall want to abandon all forms of legally recognized marriage and leave weddings to churches, I am fine with that. But this is why we can’t have nice things.

          • That is an interesting prospective on things indeed, you did a nice job on the financial thing in your first paragraph, it does go both ways though.

            The illness thing is a bit over my head and personally I would not embrace that way of thinking.

            Could you live with this? Government at any level has no business in “Marriage” to any degree, nothing, zero. It is between the person and their church. If you are an atheist just leave the church part out or go to one of those new Godless churches popping up everywhere. If you are gay fine, get married any way you like, who cares.

            Should I as a Christian do battle with gay and atheist people, of course not. Should I think less of them and treat them as if they are not my equal or they are somehow defective, no. Their have been gay people since the beginning of time and I assure you there will be gay people when the end of times comes. It’s not my place to judge or classify or condemn, we are all God’s people because he has given all of us spirit.

            I don’t like the idea gay people are hijacking the word “Marriage”, to me this is an attack on my faith. The Bible clearly states what marriage is, that is why it is an attack. They can call it anything else, make up anything they want, but using the word marriage is spitting on Christianity. It’s the word I defend, not the institution of a union between to people. I do have an obligation to defend the Bible, yet not to push it on others. It is hard to put in words my thoughts here and I don’t make much sense but I am trying.

            I will leave this here for a while as I am sure I will hear it from both sides what a bad Christian I am, from one side for accepting at all and the other for not accepting enough.

            • I think we are pretty much in agreement. And as for my opinion on the mental illness angle of it, not only do I have a healthcare background, I also have a family full of people with most of these disorders including homosexuality. I love them all dearly but I was raised on “crazy”. (That is Texan for I am very familiar with the issue due to family background.) This has been a lifelong area of study for me.

      • How, exactly, is it not fair for us to have to pay for benefits for gay couples, but it’s fair for them to have to pay for our benefits?

        • So, are you ok with paying for four Muslim wives and families? How about 20 Mormon wives and families? How about paying for bestiality pet/lovers? There are bestiality brothels in Germany. I am sure they pay taxes for all those straight families. Isn’t it only fair we pay for their unions? You can not make a consistent argument otherwise with your logic. Or should a society vote on what unions they want legally recognize and subsidize? Oh wait, SCOTUS and the rest of the Judicial Tyrants took that out of our hands. Isn’t true liberty getting government out of this period? And second best is letting the people decide for themselves?

          It amuses me that this modern generation thinks they are somehow more progressive and enlightened. For thousands of years even cultures that openly practiced homosexuality still had heterosexual couples as the basis of the family unit. But somehow we know better in 2013? I think not.This is a giant sociological experiment that is turning into one massive clusterfuck. Literally.

          And I will point out that I have made all of my arguments without falling back on my Christianity. Of course a marriage is only between a man and women, no matter what the misguided want to call other relationships.

          And one final point. Marxism always has as its final agenda to destroy all ties except those to the State. This is especially true with destroying family ties. Do you really think these bastards are so worried about 5% of the population having legal recognition of their relationships? Since when have they cared about equal rights or fairness? Do you think they are doing this for Liberty? No, THEY KNOW that homosexuality destroys families, lives, and societies. That is why they endorse it. This is not a kindness. Wake up and smell the coffee.

        • Homosexual males suffer from far higher rates of several blood borne diseases. This alone was reason to keep them out of the military for dollar costs. A Soldier of Fortune magazine article did an extensive explanation of this in the 1990s.

          The same economics will apply in the private insurance world. That is before we calculate Obama Care costs.
          This is before we figure the much higher healthcare costs in all of the homosexual community.
          Due to the fact that no insurance company can charge homosexuals higher rates for their vastly higher risk. You and the rest of us already subsidize their self destructive behavior.

          Your costs will now rise even more than they would have because of Obama Care.

          That is, how, exactly, it is not fair for us to pay for their higher cost that will now effectively double!

    • Homosexuals had the same marriage rights as the rest of the population!
      The exact same rights!
      Gay Marriage is about special privileges!
      This ruling will be used to force me to treat as legitimate special status (Gay “Marriage”) for less than 5% of the population. It will be used to take my private property in furtherance of same.
      You asked ” Why can’t they enter into a committed, legally-recognized relationship like heterosexuals?” They could! From http://market-ticker.org “Powers of Attorney work just fine for medical and financial decisions and cost nothing to draw up. They’re superior to the default “rules” too, because you can craft exactly what you — and your partner — want.” “Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. It predates our modern governments.”
      Go to http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=222217 to start to learn why this is bad law (Anti-Law would be a better term).

      This Judicial tyranny is meant to be used to force those who wanted no involvement with this crap into forced approval.
      If you can’t figure that out you have not been paying attention.

      • You Happy D just addressed 50% of this issue exactly right, and I bet you would have got the rest right if you would have continued.
        Marriage is a institution established by God and has always been the fabric of the American Culture from our founding. Man cannot rule on this, he just does not have the authority to overrule everything this word stands for to please the flavor of the day.
        But the root word has yet to be spoken in any comment yet.

        • Jimmy the Saint

          “Marriage is a institution established by God and has always been the fabric of the American Culture from our founding.”

          Under the current Court, God wouldn’t have standing, so he can’t contest anything. 😉

  6. I love how the justices are defending us from the tyranny of the majority when they rule the way we like and overriding the will of the people when they don’t.

    Ah, well, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. 😉

    • Protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, is that their job? Is supporting the will of the people their job?
      NJ calls people “Bible-thumpers” in a derogatory context I assume because she is somehow upset with them. You think someone has small minds and are foolish because they do not agree with your view point, right? well I think that is what you are saying.

  7. Senator_Blutarsky

    From Boston T Party brilliance ” Hologram of Liberty “-
    Hologram of Liberty –The Constitution’s Shocking Alliance With Big Government – is a cold splash of water on our civic mythology. Hologram’s main contention is that the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d’etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780’s, the “virus” of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it’s all constitutional!” Oh, it’s only ‘constitutional’ because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!,” some would reply.

    Yes, but the Framers allowed the Supreme Court, without any check or balance, to approve of federal encroachment on the States and on the people. There is no constitutional avenue for overturning a despotic Supreme Court ruling – and it was designed that way. The feds are allowed to “monitor” themselves, like students grading their own tests. Had the Framers wanted to really check the Supreme Court, they’d have at least created an appellate court (activated by petition) staffed by justices from the States. Had the Framers wanted to really hamstring Congress and the President, they would have given the people a “no-confidence” device to remove traitorous officials in midterm. Had they wanted to, the Framers could have (as did the Swiss) easily confined the Federal Government – but they didn’t want to. In their opinion, a strong central government – independent of real popular approval – was best for America. The Framers left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have such an unchallengeable government today.

    http://javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

    Buy the book – read it closely.

    “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)

  8. THE Big Fat Panda

    When will people march on the courthouse and toss these judges out? Hmmmm, I’d say not in my lifetime. Baaah, Baaah!

  9. Michael Adams

    NJ. The Court’s ruling was not about what people do in their bedrooms. Marriages aren’t made in bedrooms. They are made in courthouses. This ruling will have very far reaching effects on many aspects of law. Also, it’s a bad legal argument. Kennedy alleges malicious intent by the people who passed DOMA. Malice by Clinton? Malice by Schumer? This was not law. It was, most likely, a payment to a blackmailer.

    In another matter, related only by the same “government’s hands off” argument, abortions are not made in bedrooms. either. While I certainly do oppose the murder of unborn children, I have a most strenuous objection to being made to PAY for this “freedom of choice” for people who make those choices. If they want me out of their lives, why do they expect me to pay for their life decisions?

    • The ceremony of marriage takes place in a church or courthouse, but marriage itself is between two people. Should that couple’s neighbor have a say in their life together?

      I fully agree with you about being forced to pay for other people, though. I don’t think the government should be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Nor should Paul expect Peter to take responsibility for Paul’s actions.

  10. Civil War is no longer optional.
    Because of this ruling the question now is will it be hot or cold?
    If we take the observation “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” to heart, then the Supremes just made violence more probable.

    • This issue pushes your buttons, please look into Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act being ran through congress right now, it is worthy of revolution indeed.

      • It is not just this issue.
        I will deal with other violations of Section 4 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment as they come up.
        I had plenty to say about the violation of Section 4 of the Constitution during the Arizona v. United States Crimmigration verdict. My position on Crimmigrant Trespass has not changed.

  11. Why is everyone totally missing the bigger issue that is smacking you all in the face? The government claims the authority to regulate our personal relationships. Does anyone else see a problem with this?. Why should I have to go to the government and beg permission to marry the person I love? We complain about them regulating our businesses and personal property, but don’t mind them being involved in the absolute most personal issue we will ever face in our lives? That is the most backwards thinking I have ever heard.

  12. Frankly I don’t see what business the government, local, state, or federal, has in interfering with anything even vaguely related to marriage in the first place.
    Surely that’s between the two to be joined, the relevant celebrant and nobody else whatsoever.
    This whole thing appears to be an issue because it’s taken on the form of a pissing contest between the pro team and the anti team, each wanting to force the other to bow to their will.
    If both sides demanded that all government bodies butted out of anything and everything to do with marriage then people could call it whatever they liked and nobody would be forced to concede the matter one way or another.
    Sadly, however, it seems that government interference is heartily welcomed where it supports one’s cause, however shallow and unimportant that cause is in the big picture looming large at this very minute.

  13. As if this or any other illegal govt./court could legislate legitimacy on a “lifestyle” that is so against human nature and is wrong in the eyes of God.Just another small group of “diverse”weirdos brought in under the banner of freedom,justice,and liberty to increase the power of the demonrats/ repugnacrats chokehold on the dead republic.Dont forget to vote civilian,err citizen!

  14. Thank you, both Jpalm and Wombat. We came so far that very few can even imagine doing hardly anything without some authority licensing or not prohibiting it. Considering that we’re talking about humans who are conceptually motivated, I think there’s a technical term for that: death, as in “death as a human.”

    Hell, I still can’t figure out “no smoking in restaurants” laws. Private property? Liberty to pursue happiness? What the hell is all this about, anyway?

  15. indyjonesouthere

    This is all a power grab by the ruling elite to further control the lives of the citizens. And you can pretty much trace its origins to the Civil War. Before the war marriage was between you and the church, most states did not even interfere in marriage. And before the Civil War the church was also the primary educator of the citizens. After the Civil War nearly all the states began promoting and practicing “public education” which has degenerated into little more than a propaganda political correctness campaign that is being run more and more by the federal government. So is it so surprising to see the state and finally the feds interfering in the marriage the very same way. Look at other institutions affected the same way….military anyone? How about law enforcement? We live in a thugocracy…not a democratic republic.

  16. Grenadier1

    Are you tryin to tell me that Jesus Christ cant hit a curve ball?

  17. The only winners in this one will be the divorce lawyers.

  18. “I don’t see where I am wishing for anything, “Natural law” has been recognized from the first societies of mankind, John Locke refers to this many times in Essay Concerning Human Understanding and the Second Treatise of Government and I believe had great influence on the wording of our Constitution.
    Where is it do you read in my comment I am apologizing for anything? Or speak of a magical government?
    If you have something to add to a conversation that’s great, why don’t you do that.” That was essentially the position of Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg, that murder and mass murder have always been crimes long before any legislatures existed to codify it thus.