This week we might have reached a tipping point. While I like to play devil’s advocate and argue against my fellow right wing Tea Party extremists, I think we might have gone over the edge in a away we never have before.
Let me count the ways.
1) The Supreme Court striking down California’s Proposition Eight
This gets a little convoluted, and it’s difficult to understand, but this ruling completely undermined the right of a state’s citizens to order their governance through the initiative process. Basically, the will of the People was denied because the Supreme Court said that a private institution didn’t have the standing to affirm the constitutionality of a democratically elected proposition.
The people of California made it very clear that they affirmed the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The state of California said that they would not defend the will of the people, and refused to argue the case. The Supreme Court then denied to hear the case because they denied the standing of private parties pressing the will of the people.
Professor of Law at Chapman University John Eastman explains the issues very clearly on an interview segment with Dennis Prager.
Jerry Brown is completely ignoring prevailing law that would otherwise demand another ruling on whether or not proposition 8 is unconstitutional. As Professor Eastman says, “it’s utter lawlessness.”
2) The Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act
One of the more impressive critics of this ruling is John Yoo, who personally agrees with homosexual marriage, but argues that the ruling was “embarrassingly deficient.”
This remarkable ruling basically accuses all those who voted for DOMA as being animated by anti-gay bigotry, and ignores all the other societal and philosophical reasons why one might be against homosexual marriage aside from anti-gay animosity.
This is the argument from John Yoo:
Most of the opinion is devoted to a discussion of federalism, but most of it is tangential. The Court cannot quite hold that Congress is not allowed to adopt definitions of words like “marriage” for federal law purposes, so it instead says that the federal definition shows an intent by Congress to harm gays. The conclusion assumes, without explicitly saying so, that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all guilty of anti-gay bias in 1996, when DOMA was enacted. As Chief Justice Roberts says, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”
Once the majority can claim an ill motive on the part of Congress, any law making gays worse off is immediately struck down. There’s no analysis of the government’s other purposes and no questions about whether the law is tailored to meet those purposes (an issue on which the Court spent so much time and energy in the affirmative action and voting rights cases).
The best sign of the convoluted nature of this decision is the fact that Bill Clinton praised the finding, when he was the president who signed the legislation into law.
So this case is decided upon simply because the Supreme Court justices want the result to be true, not because there is any merit to the case.
3) Wendy Davis and the illegal “People’s Filibuster” in the Texas Legislature
This is the clearest abrogation of the duty of elected representatives to respect the will of the people and the most obscene obstruction of law and justice.
In the wake of the terrible and evil bloodshed against the unborn in the Kermit Gosnell trial, the Texas legislature proposed a law to shore up safety measures in abortion mills in order to protect women’s health.
Forth Worth State Senator Wendy Davis took this occasion to propel herself unto the willing lapdog media as a crusader for the right of women to kill their unborn innocent children.
She undertook a filibuster which the media portrayed as heroic – but what they failed to report is that at midnight at the end of the congressional session, the representatives had the legal right to sign into law the abortion clinic safety provisions.
They were unable to perform their constitutional duty to perform the will of their constituents because the unruly violent mob in the capitol was so loud, they could not complete their vote.
So despite their attempt to follow the law and vote according to the will of the people that duly elected them, the pandemonium of a screeching emotional rabble kept them from doing their constitutional duty.
By contrast, the filibuster by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz was excoriated and ridiculed by the press, even though months later their suspicions would be confirmed by the NSA and other scandals.
What was the reaction of the press? To sanctify and praise their patron saint of infanticide.
This week was signified a terrible setback for the rule of law, which has been a pillar of strength against which America has made so many political, economic, and philosophical gains. Will we continue to erode our principles or restore them?