U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead at West Texas Ranch

ScaliaMARFA, Texas — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on Saturday at a ranch in Texas where he was staying for a hunting excursion over the weekend.

The 79-year-old justice had been quail hunting at Cibolo Creek Ranch near Marfa on Friday and retreated to his room after dinner. When he did not appear at breakfast in the morning, a worker went to his room and found his body. It is believed that he died in his sleep of natural causes.

Scalia, appointed in 1986 by then-President Ronald Reagan, was the longest-serving justice on the current Supreme Court.

“I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. “He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the court and the country he so loyally served.”

Scalia had been known for his sharp wit, love of the Constitution and scathing dissents, such as his strongly-worded rebuke of the majority in last June’s Obergefell v. Hodges “gay marriage” opinion.

“[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial putsch,” he wrote. “The five justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every state violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.”

In 2003, Scalia dissented from the majority rule in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the court, comprised of largely Republican-appointed justices, struck down the anti-sodomy law of the state of Texas.

  • Connect with Christian News

“[The anti-sodomy law] undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery. … State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity [are now] called into question [because of this ruling].”

In his 1992 dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he wrote, “The states may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”

Just last month, while giving a speech in Louisiana, Scalia opined that God has blessed America because the nation has recognized His providence.

“I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done Him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke His name we do Him honor—in presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways,” he said.

However, Scalia has also noted during appearances that his Roman Catholic faith does not influence his decisions.

“I try mightily to prevent my religious views or my political views or my philosophical views from affecting my interpretation of the laws, which is what my job is about,” he said in 2002.

“They can make me leave the bench if I find that I’m enmeshed in an immoral operation, but the only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment – thou shalt not lie,” Scalia outlined. “I try to observe that faithfully, but other than that I don’t think any of my religious views have anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.”

Scalia, a textualist, was the author of three books: “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges” and “Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts.”

He and his wife Maureen had nine children. Scalia was just a month away from his 80th birthday.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    My condolences to Mr. Scalia’s friends and family. Having said that, I am glad to have him off the Supreme Court. I wish he had retired instead of dying in office.

    • Oboehner

      They should all go.

    • afchief

      Because you are anti-constitution. Period!!!! This man followed the Constitution. Liberals and homos hate it.

      You are proof!

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Okay, so, which opinions of Scalia’s do you think reflect the Constitution well that liberals don’t get?

        • afchief

          Homo marriage for one!!!

          • Gott Mit Uns!

            How is “homo” marriage any of your business?

          • afchief

            Sanctity of Marriage

            The argument against same-sex marriage is by no means limited to Christian dogma. In fact, marriage as an institution between a man and a woman is an ancient concept from across religious and non-religious philosophy (including Greek and Roman thought). The distinct bond that constitutes traditional marriage was not invented by the state, and the state has no right to change it.

            Proponents of same-sex marriage have mis-characterized marriage. Marriage is not about companionship or its utilitarian benefits, not about taste or preference, or even about love.

            Many in the culture have mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the convenience of adults. The problem with this common misunderstanding of marriage today is the mistaken idea that marriage is about the rights and happiness of adults, that two adults have a right to happiness for as long as they want. In actuality, marriage is not adult-centric, but is the bedrock institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing children.

            Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

            Anal intercourse does not produce children. Further, there are complementary aspects of a man and woman that are important to the institution of marriage which go beyond the obvious physical attributes. There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a woman, and vice versa.

            Many heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, misunderstand that the fundamental and intrinsic meaning of marriage is the raising of children and what is best for them. That is why laws have historically discouraged adultery and divorce. Statistics are clear that children raised outside of a traditional strong family unit are much more likely to suffer social ills. (See Getting the Marriage Conversation Right.)

            These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to both a mom and a dad.

            The most comprehensive study to date of the psychological and social status of adults with homosexual parents is that of Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas (Study). Based on a random sample of about 15,000 this study reported results consistent with common sense, that those raised in a traditional man-woman intact marriage did best. Those with a homosexual parent(s) were the:

            most apt to say they were not exclusively heterosexual

            most apt to to be on welfare

            most apt to have gotten a sexually transmitted infection

            most apt to have recently thought of suicide

            most apt to report being raped

            most apt to test impulsive

            most apt to smoke

            most apt to report heavy TB viewing

            most apt to have been arrested

            most apt to have pled guilty to a crime

            most apt to score high on depression

            most promiscuous

            least apt to be employed

            least apt to report being able to depend on others

            least apt to report having felt secure and safe in their family

            It isn’t that gay people are necessarily bad parents, but children thrive most fully when raised by a mother and a father. The Witherspoon Institute’s Report on Marriage explains why: There are crucial sex differences in parenting. Mothers are more sensitive to the cries, words, and gestures of infants, toddlers, and adolescents, and partly as a consequence, they are better at providing physical and emotional nurture to their children.” Complementing that, “Fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage their children to tackle difficult tasks, endure hardship without yielding, and seek out novel experiences.” Similar arguments appear in a policy brief by the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and a journal article from the University of St. Thomas Law Journal.

            The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. “Nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman,” says scholar Harry Jaffa. Political entities have overwhelmingly agreed. For example, the Minnesota Supreme court said, “There is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race,” a limitation it finds illegitimate, “and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

            Historian Glenn S. Sunshine has this to say in his book Why You Think the Way You Do: “Throughout history, in every society without exception, marriage in one form or another has had a privileged place as a means to regulate sexuality, so that children would be brought into the world and raised in a stable environment. The notion of homosexual marriage was thus absurd; it violated the very purpose of marriage. Some societies had provisions for temporary same-sex relationships, usually between an adult and an adolescent male, but nothing that allowed for permancy or gave the status of marriage.”

            As put by Melanie Baker, “Law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny….If we want to preserve the democracy that stands on self-evident truths as its foundation; if we want to provide our children and grandchildren with the same protection we currently enjoy; and if we want to salvage the remaining bits of rationality essential to a truly diverse and integrated society, we will stand against bills like the [Maryland] Civil Marriage Protection Act.”

            Actually, we discriminate in many ways as to who can marry. One cannot marry his mother. One cannot marry a minor child. And one cannot have multiple wives. These are all issues determined to be important for the individuals involved as well as society.

            Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the authority of God, as well as hurt society.

            Liberals may argue, “Why should we arbitrarily select only heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals want to marry?” The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. Its purpose is clear and of utmost importance to society.

            David Orland in an article entitled “The Deceit of Gay Marriage” puts it very well. He says:

            To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social interest because the family is essential to society’s reproduction. The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.

            The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those who employ it. This is for two reasons:

            First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and the law—though many are surprised to learn this—is aimed at the general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.

            Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual “families” of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones.

            Another factor for the children is the stability of marriage. While unfaithfulness and divorce is not uncommon among heterosexual marriages, these things are the rule in homosexual marriages. According to one study researched and written by two homosexual authors, of 156 homosexual couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity, and of the hundred that had been together for more than five years, none had remained faithfu

  • afchief

    One of the few on the bench who believed in our Constitution. He will be missed.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      What do you care? You think the Supreme Court has no power.

      • afchief

        They do not have any power. Brain dead liberals like you, and manipulated Christians believe otherwise.

        I’m spreading the truth far and wide that we are being lied to about the role of the SCOTUS.

        Let the truth be known!!!

        • acontraryview

          “They do not have any power. ”

          Then what does it matter who gets appointed?

        • Quantz

          What you are spreading is politely called manure, sir.

          • afchief

            Then prove me wrong!!!!

            Guess what you can’t!!!!!!!

          • Quantz

            Just because you don’t like the decisions of SCOTUS doesn’t mean it has no power.

          • afchief

            If you think the SCOTUS has power to strike down laws then show me where in the Constitution they can do this.

            Waiting…………………………………………………………..

          • Quantz

            What exactly do you think the Supreme Court does, sit around all day making meaningless decisions that have no effect or impact on anyone?

          • afchief

            Another product of our indoctrination system we call public schools I see. Read and educate yourself!!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Quantz

            Well, like I said, why don’t you defy a supreme court ruling, and let’s see what happens?

          • afchief

            Defy it? Defy what? A SCOTUS ruling is NOT law!!!

          • gogo0

            they rule on what is and isnt constitstitutional.
            do something unconstitutional and see what happens.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ask Kim Davis what happens when you defy the Supreme Court.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes. He thinks that.

          • gogo0

            if the SCOTUS rules that banning abortion is constitutional, would you still say they have no power?

          • afchief

            They have NO power, period!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            And yet, the entire country obeys their rulings. Hence, they have power.

          • afchief

            Then show me the law Mr. Make Believe Lawyer!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Sure. Right after you show me a lawyer who doesn’t cite case law.

          • afchief

            So you are telling me “case law” IS law? Is that what you are telling me????

            Where did you get that law degree from? Rocko’s lawyer school for the mentally challenged liberal?!?!?

            LOL!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Instead of a long cut and paste, I will point you to an online textbook on Supreme Court Decision Making – http://www. thisnation. com/textbook/judiciary-decision.html. If after reading the article you still hold your current views, could you please point us to textbooks on American law?

            This way we can both have common references for continuing this discussion.

          • afchief

            Instead, let’s use their job description! Show me where it says case law IS law

            Waiting…………………………………………………..

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • Bob Johnson

            A shorter reply would be

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

          • afchief

            LOL! Does it say that case law IS law. No it says their power extends to all cases.

            This is why liberalism truly is a mental disorder. The law is whatever liberals think it is.

            Go read this article that came out 2 days ago and concentrate on the bottom half of the article. Look up the references in the article. And educate yourself!!!!!

            February 16, 2016
            Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?
            By Selwyn Duke

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2016/02/did_justice_scalia_already_give_us_the_solution_to_the_problem_of_filling_his_seat.html#ixzz40VHQSbkL

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, that’s what I’m telling you.

          • afchief

            Let’s read an article that came out yesterday? Shall we? It explains in detail what I have been saying to Mr. Make Believe Lawyer. I’ll skip the first part of the article and get to the meat.

            February 16, 2016
            Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?
            By Selwyn Duke

            This brings us to Scalia’s comment, made in his dissenting opinion in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) ruling. To wit: with “each decision… unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence,” he warned his colleagues. To what was he referring?

            Obviously, the Court has neither army nor police to enforce its judgments; it is government’s executive branch — headed by the president on the federal level and governors in the states — with the constitutional warrant to enforce law. And whatever executive branches don’t enforce doesn’t happen, period, no matter how much black-robed lawyers stamp their feet.

            But is this just a matter of might makes right? Aren’t we to be a nation of laws? For sure.

            A nation of laws, not lawyers.

            Laws — not judicial decisions.

            There is a difference. Note that Scalia complained of decisions “unabashedly based not on law,” clearly drawing a distinction between decisions and laws. Conclusion? An executive branch upholding illegal decisions is, by definition, not safeguarding the rule of law.

            And an executive branch that defies ignores illegal court decisions is preserving the rule of law.

            “Defies” is crossed out above because that term can connote resistance to authority. But the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. What “authority” over all and sundry does it have? Some will now answer, “Judicial supremacy!” Let’s examine that.

            The legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy — where its decisions constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch but a super-legislature/über-executive — because ____________?

            The answer has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.

            That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can pull it off.

            This isn’t how our system is meant to work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution — not from itself. And how dangerous is this usurpation? Founding Father Thomas Jefferson warned in 1819 that judicial supremacy’s acceptance would do nothing less than make “our constitution a complete felo de se” — a suicide pact. He explained:

            For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial supremacy] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation…. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.

            Abraham Lincoln, who ignored the Dred Scott decision, also agreed. As Princeton University professor Robert George put it while conducting a December interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Lincoln said “that to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases, no matter what, no matter how usurpative, no matter how anti-constitutional, would be for the American people — and I quote now the Great Emancipator — ‘to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’” Jefferson was even more pointed, writing in 1820 that judicial supremacy is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” And so it has come to pass. We’re now reduced to arguing about how the next appointed oligarch will shape us wax people.

            Satirist Jonathan Swift wrote, mocking the legal profession in Gulliver’s Travels, that it is a maxim among lawyers “that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again…” no matter how preposterous. Just as bad, however, is when we abide by judicial supremacy again and again, simply because it has been done before. Part of what motivates this deference is ignorance and (bad) habit, and part is cowardice and political expediency. After all, hiding behind unconstitutional court rulings allows politicians to avoid making difficult decisions. When Ohio governor John Kasich said last June after Obergefell that faux marriage is “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it,” he was essentially stating “Hey, don’t look at me. The Court did it!” Of course, he also said that now “it’s time to move on,” which he was more than happy to do. He has got his political career to consider — Constitution be damned.

            Any president, governor or legislator worth his salt would do his duty and tell usurpative judges to go pound sand. Some will say that this would set off a “constitutional crisis,” but newsflash: we’re already experiencing a constitutional crisis. This occurs not when the Constitution is protected by bringing to heel those who trample it, but when that trampling is allowed to go unanswered.

            By the way, you know who else apparently questions judicial supremacy? Barack Obama. He has shown willingness to ignore the courts; in fact, he has been so dismissive that a federal appeals court actually ordered the administration in 2012 to submit a letter stating whether or not it recognized the judiciary’s “power.”

            Of course, Obama will defy constitutional laws; in contrast, “conservatives,” being conservative (as in reluctant to take bold action), won’t even ignore unconstitutional rulings. It’s an old story. Liberal-controlled localities have been nullifying (ignoring) federal immigration and drug laws for decades. But conservatives consider nullification — even in the defense of legitimate freedoms — some kind of radical action, despite Jefferson’s calling it the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation. And “conservative” justices tend to feel constrained by “precedent,” even the unconstitutional variety, yet don’t expect any liberal Scalia replacement to bat an eye at overturning constitutional precedent that contradicts the leftist agenda. Is it any wonder conservatives never saw a cultural or political battle they couldn’t lose?

            One might say conservatives fight by Queensbury rules while liberals operate no-holds-barred, but it’s not even that. Though conservatives are allowed to throw punches, they prefer to stand and block and be a punching bag — while the liberals throw sand in their eyes and kick off their kneecaps.

            Calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent, “[I]t 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.” We won’t talk the court out of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really is.

            Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/articles/2016/02/did_justice_scalia_already_give_us_the_solution_to_the_problem_of_filling_his_seat.html#ixzz40V6iadQ3

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, that’s nice. Your long copypasta is essentially saying that American jurisprudence SHOULDN’T be as dependent as it is on case law. Not that it ISN’T dependent on case law.

            Frankly, as I’ve said before, I have no interest in debating what American law should look like. It’s an interesting thought exercise, but it has no bearing on the actual practice of law.

            You keep asking me where I went to law school, and calling me a fake lawyer, implying that you believe that real lawyers understand that Supreme Court precedent serves no binding purpose. But even your own quoted article doesn’t say that. It just says it SHOULDN’T.

            Well, law schools teach students how to practice law not how to debate the intellectual abstractions of it. I went to law school to learn how to be a lawyer, not an academic or a philosopher. While history professors and philosophers debate the actual meaning of the Constitution, I am going to go ahead and continue practicing law as I was taught and as every lawyer, professor, and judge that I’ve ever met practices it.

          • afchief

            And yet you still do not understand that the SCOTUS cannot strike down any laws. Did you study the Constitution? Where does it state that so and so vs. so and so is law? Where? Not in the Constitution. Did you study how law is made, changed, and removed? There are ONLY two ways laws are made, changed, or struck down in our country and the SCOTUS is not one of them.

            If 10 million people of a state vote for a “law” to be passed you are telling me 5 people in black robes can strike down that law? Is that what you are telling me? You learned that in law school? Really?

            Sorry again, you must have went to Rocko’s school for the liberal and homosexual impaired. Because you are WRONG!!!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Actually yes. For example take California Prop 8. In a vote of the people Prop 8 won with 7,001,064 votes equal to 52.24% of the votes cast. Ultimately Perry v. Schwarzenegger was heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case the went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where a 2-1 agreed with the district court – same sex marriage was legal.

            The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Prop 8 proponents did not have standing and returned the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing.

          • afchief

            Which is TOTALLY unconstitutional. When the “will” of the people have spoken i.e. by voting a law in or out, a federal judge has NO authority to overrule it. NONE!!! If you believe otherwise, show me where in the Constitution a judge can overrule the people? And I will show you where they can’t.

            If that were the case then we would be ruled by judges. That is NOT how a Constitutional republic works.

            KNOW you history and KNOW the law!!!

          • Bob Johnson

            Know reality. You need to understand that the courts do this every day. It may not be the way some of our founding fathers envisioned our country. However, it is the form of governance that was finally ratified and has been in place since the beginning.

            Every point in the Constitution was debated. The Bill of Rights was debated. Every following Amendment was debated. Every law is debated. And every Court decision is debated. Reading the losing arguments and minority opinions is a fine way to understand the paths not taken. It is not the path to reality.

          • afchief

            You have yet to show me where a federal judge (or any judge) can over turn the “will” of the people i.e. voting.

            Waiting………………………………………………………………………………………

          • Trivia Jockey

            “If 10 million people of a state vote for a “law” to be passed you are telling me 5 people in black robes can strike down that law? Is that what you are telling me?”

            If that law violates the Constitution, yes, absolutely, that’s what we’re telling you.

            If 10 million people in New York voted to make Islam the official religion of the state and banned Christianity, the Supreme Court would strike that law down as a violation of the 1st Amendment. Unless you think that a state’s voters could legally enact Islam as the state religion?

          • afchief

            Nope! Congress is the ONLY one who can make a national religion and that can’t.

          • Trivia Jockey

            That doesn’t make any sense.

            Let me make the hypothetical clearer for you: assume the voters in New York state vote for a law that says “the official religion of the State of New York is Islam”. You don’t think the Supreme Court would strike that law down on 1st Amendment grounds?

          • afchief

            The 1st amendment says Congress. Not states!

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

            If a state wanted a state religion they are not violating the 1st amendment. Only Congress can.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, can you just respond with a yes or no answer instead of your wall of text copypastas:
            Can the supreme court rule on the constitutionality of an action or law?

          • afchief

            I’ll answer the way I want to answer. With liberals and homosexuals facts ricochet off quicker than a pinball off a flipper. They have fact-retardant skin

          • Elie Challita

            So you’ll lie or dodge the question if it suits you?

          • afchief

            What question(s) have I dodged or lied about?

          • Elie Challita

            You just dodged my question about whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to rule on whether an action or bill contradicts the constitution.

          • afchief

            OK! The SCOTUS can rule on any case that affects the Constitution. With that said, their ruling is only an opinion. It changes nothing. Congress has to agree to the ruling and make the necessary changes.

          • Elie Challita

            Ok, so we’ve agreed that SCOTUS can deem a law unconstitutional. You have often said that the law is then remanded to the appropriate legislature to be corrected. Can it be enforced, in its unconstitutional phrasing, before it is corrected?
            And if yes, what would keep a state from indefinitely postponing an unconstitutional laws’ correction in order to keep it in effect?

          • afchief

            No, a SCOTUS ruling is not enforceable. It does not have the weight of law behind it. It is only an opinion. Congress has to agree with the opinion and then make, change or remove a law.

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Balerion

            If ten million people were to pass a law that said that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus and couldn’t drink from the same water fountains as other people, then five people in black robes most certainly can strike it down. Which they in fact did, unanimously, back in 1954. And if some backward southern state tried to pass such a law today, it too would get struck down.

          • afchief

            What part do you not understand? The SCOTUS does not make, change or strike down laws. It ONLY renders opinions. If you believe otherwise then show me the federal homo marriage law. Show me the federal abortion law.

            Waiting…………………………………………………………………….

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • gogo0

            youre right, they do render opinions… legally binding opinions.
            go create a color-segregated school and see how powerless the supreme court’s opinions really are. ask kim davis how powerless these opnions are, her disregard for the constitution got her time in court

          • afchief

            Liberals are dumber then a box of rocks. I see it ALL the time. Show me where in the Constitution it states their opinions are binding.

            Waiting……………………………………………………………………………………

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

  • Pastor D

    I pray that a true man or woman of God takes his place. One who is filled with wisdom,the courage to use it, and, the determination to stand for what’s right – not just expedient!!

    • afchief

      Then you better pray this happens after the election and Hillary or Sanders is not the president. Otherwise, you will have an anti-American, radical leftist on the bench.

      • Quantz

        No thanks. I’m not into Christian theocracies like Cruz would have.

        • Balerion

          Seems fitting that a creature of the devil (such as Cruz) would try to pass himself off as a man of God.

    • acontraryview

      So you want a Justice to make decisions based on his/her religious beliefs rather than our Constitution?

      • Josey

        Standing for our Constitution takes a moral person.

        • acontraryview

          If by “moral” you mean a person who believes that it is moral to support the protections provided by our Constitution, then I would agree with you.

      • Pastor D

        No! But there is a difference between a person who is intelligent and a person who is wise. What I mean is that, there is knowledge (the accumulation of facts); then, there is the correct application of those facts (i.e. wisdom). There is a difference between being pragmatic and doing what’s right. Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a disgrace to all. I believe that America is great, not because we are better people than the other people on earth; but, because we have asked God to bless and keep us. I am praying for a man or woman who can properly apply wisdom to the decisions they will be confronted with. Wisdom derived from the same place our founding fathers derived it from: God and the Scriptures combined with intelligence and good sense.

        • acontraryview

          “then, there is the correct application of those facts”

          What is used to determine what is the “correct” application? The Christian belief system?

          “Wisdom derived from the same place our founding fathers derived it from: God and the Scriptures combined with intelligence and good sense.”

          If the founding fathers intended our rights and freedoms to be based upon “God and the Scriptures” then please explain why neither of those was included in the Constitution. Further, please explain why the protections provided by the Constitution directly conflict with seven of the ten Biblical Commandments.

          • Pastor D

            Our founding fathers wanted each American to be free from any state mandated religion. Thomas Jefferson, in 1802 wrote to the Danbury Baptists concerning the First Amendment: “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’”
            I, as a man who has chosen to believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I have investigated the Bible and hold it to be true concerning matters of life and faith. I as an American citizen, believe that the next appointee to the Supreme Court would best serve America if he or she would intelligently use the “Scriptures” to guide them in the decisions they would be called upon to make.
            I believe that God of the Bible has given every human being the right to choose what they will believe in; and, He has given every human being the right to hold and speak those beliefs.
            I give every person those same rights regardless of how adamantly I may disagree with them.

          • acontraryview

            “I as an American citizen, believe that the next appointee to the Supreme Court would best serve America if he or she would intelligently use the “Scriptures” to guide them in the decisions they would be called upon to make.”

            So you want a Justice who will to make decisions based on his/her religious beliefs rather than our Constitution. If a Muslim was appointed to the SCOTUS would you want that justice to “intelligently use the Koran” to guide them in the decisions they would be called upon to make?

            “I give every person those same rights regardless of how adamantly I may disagree with them.”

            I applaud you for your support of the 1st Amendment. I am curious though, why do you support that portion of the Constitution not being viewed based upon scripture – which clearly says that people should have no God other than the Christian god – but then suggest that other parts should be ruled upon based upon the teachings of scripture?

          • Pastor D

            I (personally) want a Supreme Court Justice to interpret the Constitution with an intertwining wisdom and belief that comes from the Bible.
            If a Muslim was appointed to SCOTUS I would not want him or her to “intelligently use the” Koran to guide them in the decisions they would be called upon to make; because, I do not believe in the Muslim faith; or that the Koran is divinely inspired.
            God of the Bible gives every person the right to choose what they want to believe in; I do also; …however, what a person chooses to believe in effects my relationship with them and it effects the respect I do or do not have for the decisions they make.
            I do not “broad-brush” what I support or don’t support. Some issues (in America) do not violate Scripture; other issues do. Any issue (decided upon by the Supreme Court) that violates Scripture I cannot and do not support.
            I “support that portion of the Constitution not being based upon scripture” …because it actually is. God demands of each person that they choose this day whom they will follow. God of the Bible or other gods invented by man! God has ordained that people (while they are in the body) can do what they want. And they do!!!
            My overarching standard by which I view God, faith, and life are the Scriptures. God does not make people love or follow Him…neither do I; however, to me, there is no other God other than God of the Bible; and, any purported wisdom that runs contrary to Scripture is not wisdom in my “Book.”

          • acontraryview

            “I (personally) want a Supreme Court Justice to interpret the Constitution with an intertwining wisdom and belief that comes from the Bible. ”

            You are certainly entitled to want what you want. I prefer that the Justices leave their personal religious views out of their decisions. Which, apparently, you DO support if there religious views are not shared by you, but you DO NOT support if their views are shared by you. Interesting hypocrisy there.

            “Any issue (decided upon by the Supreme Court) that violates Scripture I cannot and do not support. ”

            If you only support decisions that are consistent with biblical scripture then, indeed, you would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy.

            “I “support that portion of the Constitution not being based upon scripture” …because it actually is.”

            Given that the Constitution provides protections which directly conflict with seven of the ten Biblical commandments, how is it that the Constitution is “based upon scripture”?

            “and, any purported wisdom that runs contrary to Scripture is not wisdom in my “Book.””

            Well that’s pretty egotistical.

          • Pastor D

            Hypocrisy, no! A hypocrite is someone who pretends or plays a role. My beliefs are not pretentious. I believe them.
            Egotistical, no! This is not a matter of pride. This is a matter of faith. I believe in the bible and that it supersedes every other book or document. Should any matter come down to a decision to obey God or man …I choose God!!!

          • acontraryview

            You set forth the premise that SCOTUS justices should consider their religious beliefs when ruling. To suggest that they should only do that when their religious beliefs agree with yours, but not do so when their religious beliefs do not agree with yours, is hypocritical. Either they should utilize their religious beliefs when ruling, or they should not. So which is it?

            “I believe in the bible and that it supersedes every other book or document. Should any matter come down to a decision to obey God or man …I choose God!!!”

            That is certainly your choice. The SCOTUS judges, on the other hand, are not put in place to make decisions on cases based upon their religious beliefs. They are put into place to make decisions on one thing, and one thing only, the Constitution.

          • Pastor D

            I want a SCOTUS judge to consider the Scriptures when making profound determinations on our Constitution that are not directly addressed in the document.
            I do not trust or rely on religious beliefs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of differing religions in the world.
            Trusting the Bible is the antithesis of egotism. The Bible – not my pride nor my personal opinions form my beliefs. That is not egotistical – that is subservience. I trust God of the Bible because His Book and its content have proven true every time.
            I have never believed in religion. I believe in God of the Bible and having a relationship with Him.
            I have never fully trusted in man’s wisdom nor my own.

          • acontraryview

            “I want a SCOTUS judge to consider the Scriptures when making profound determinations on our Constitution that are not directly addressed in the document.”

            So then, for example, if a state passed a law that said that citizens who had been divorced for reasons other than adultery were not allowed to remarry and a challenge to that law came before the SCOTUS, you would want the Justices to rule that law as being Constitutional since Scripture says that a person who is divorced for reasons other adultery is in adulterer, and adultery is a sin, therefore it is Constitutional to deny those citizens access to marriage, correct?

            “I do not trust or rely on religious beliefs.”

            You seem to trust and rely on yours. You further seem to want the Justices to trust and rely on Christian beliefs. So how can you say that you “do not trust or rely on religious beliefs”?

            “The Bible – not my pride nor my personal opinions form my beliefs.”

            It is your opinion that the Bible contains a singular truth. So, yes, your personal opinion forms your beliefs.

            “I believe in God of the Bible and having a relationship with Him. ”

            Good for you! That, however, does not seem sufficient for you. Rather, you have decided that since that is what YOU have chosen to believe, it is therefore the only true belief, and thus should be used as a basis for judicial decisions. That is egotistical.

            “I have never fully trusted in man’s wisdom”

            The Bible is a product of man.

            “nor my own.”

            Apparently not true, as you have decided that you are wise enough to state definitively who is wise and who is not and that your beliefs regarding wisdom are so correct that they should be used by Justices of the nation’s highest court. It is clear that you fully trust your own wisdom in that regard.

          • hamfish

            It’s not the middle ages, you fool.

          • acontraryview

            I didn’t say it was. Now, who’s the fool?

          • hamfish

            Oops,. I was replying to the other guy 🙂

          • Bob Johnson

            We, the American people, have 12 justices who can not agree on how to understand the Constitution, document of only a few pages. How are we as a nation going to understand over 1000 pages of Scripture? Shall we have a tribunal of clerics and rabbis elected by churches? Can the tribunal look to non-canonical literature when making a decision?

            Or do you believe that one man, such as yourself, has perfect knowledge of Scripture?

          • Pastor D

            I believe the Scriptures contain perfect knowledge – not me! I believe the Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write them. I believe anyone can search the pages of Scripture and find wisdom for the issues of life. I do not believe any man has perfect knowledge – but I do believe God has.I believe the Bible gives perfect advice – not me!

          • Bob Johnson

            But who interrupts this perfect knowledge – Pope Frances, Ken Ham, you, me?

            And this is not just personal advice, but will be the law for over 300 million people.

          • Pastor D

            Hermeneutics. The careful study of Scriptures. God did not give us a book (Bible) that couldn’t be interpreted. God gave us a book that could be understood and used to instruct and guide our lives.
            It is sad that Romanism has often propagated upon its adherents traditions i.e. the thoughts and customs of certain men and peoples which have been imposed upon Catholics at various times in history; and then called those thoughts and customs Divinely inspired.
            This will continue to happen and does continue to happen to this day. If people will not do the hard work of thinking for themselves – then – someone else will think for them.
            However, the Bible, for anyone who would desire to know it can be known and its meanings are clear not obscure.

          • Bob Johnson

            Hermeneutics – Jewish rabbis have been studying the first half of the Bible for millennia and still have not come to consensus.

    • Josey

      I agree with your prayer, just don’t think Obama is going to pick someone like that and it’s up to the senate to accept the nomination or not.

  • Pastor D

    I agree!!! It saddens me that there is not a true man or woman of God in the race. It further saddens me that a true Bible believing Christian would not stand a chance of being nominated in today’s America, let alone be elected.

    • afchief

      Ted Cruz

      • gizmo23

        He sure has suckered you

        • afchief

          You sure are suckered by the lies of the media!!!

          • Balerion

            Ted Cruz is utterly repulsive. His repulsiveness goes beyond his views – which are all batsh*t crazy in themselves – in that there is just this… wrongness… about him. There is something very unsettling – almost reptilian – about him. I’m not one to believe in demons – especially ones walking around on Earth wearing human skin – but if there were, Ted Cruz would be among them.

            He most definitely is a psychopath.

          • afchief

            The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.

          • Quantz

            Ted Cruz will lose. Badly.

  • acontraryview

    My condolences to Justice Scalia’s friends and family. Hopefully they will rejoice in the believe that he will now enjoy eternal bliss.

  • gizmoZ3

    One of the few decent men in public life, gone. So sad. At least he won’t be sharing space in eternity with a gaggle of SJWs.

    • gizmo23

      Hilarious

      • Bob Johnson

        You have a fan? Somebody who wants to impersonate you.

        • gizmo23

          I am flattered

    • Balerion

      There is nothing “decent” about someone who believes that it is perfectly okay to execute someone who is innocent just because that person had a “fair” trial and was found guilty by a jury.

      Among other things.

  • Josey

    This is sad and a sad thing for America at this time. I pray Obama’s next appointment is delayed, delayed, delayed for I know it won’t be good for Christians but I will trust in the Lord regardless and I pray for his family and send condolences.

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Surely President Obama would not betray justice and his country and install a young activist that has no regard for the law?

      • Josey

        Hahahaha…yeah, surely not

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Why? What good will delaying do?

      • afchief

        So Osamabama does not replaced him with another unqualified Marxist lesbian pagan

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Except that, according to you, the Supreme Court does nothing, so who cares who gets nominated to it?

          • afchief

            But brain dead liberals like you do. You have not shown me one law the SCOTUS has made or struck down. NONE!

            We still need a person(s) on the bench who KNOW HOW to interpret the Constitution. Who knows what it means. Who know the founders intentions when it was written. And who know the law.

            There are 5 radical justices on the bench now who don’t

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            You mean to interpret the Constitution from your point of view.

          • Angel Jabbins

            No, to interpret the Constitution from the Founding Fathers’ point of view since they were the ones who authored the document.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Good point, since they are all dead we can’t conclude exactly what they meant, so we have to come to the best interpretation that we have. Remember, George Washington was a Freemason, Franklin was an atheist, or possibly deist as were many others. They had various religious views so the exact interpretation that each may have had could have been slightly different.

          • Angel Jabbins

            I would not go so far as to say we ‘can’t conclude exactly what they meant’. If that were the case, then we might as well just throw the Constitution out the window (as I am sure many would love to do.) Just because some of the Founders were not Christians in the true sense (as believers in Jesus Christ as their personal savior) does not mean they were completely unbelieving. Most were deists and did agree that our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people…that it can govern no other. Eventually, as we are seeing today, people who have no God ruling over them except their own selfish lusts, will want to do away with the Constitution or change it until it is unrecognizable. As Franklin said…only a virtuous people are capable of freedom and self rule. Once the populace forsakes belief in a divine law giver, then anything goes. You are on the road to anarchy and that will eventually give rise to a dictator.

          • afchief

            You want me to prove how dumb liberals and homos really are? And how they have NO knowledge of the Constitution? Watch!!!!!

            Show me where in the Constitution marriage is mentioned.

            Waiting………………………………………………………………………..

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            The constitution is silent on the issue of marriage. I have heard an argument that it is in there, but it is not. If you say there is, then you are taking your own interpretation and forcing it on the document.

          • Angel Jabbins

            Yes, just like the Supreme Court did last June.

          • afchief

            That’s right it is silent which is why 39 states have marriage clauses in their Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment. The feds have NO jurisdiction in marriage. NONE!!!!

          • acontraryview

            The Federal judiciary has jurisdiction over all state laws regarding their not violating protections provided by the Federal Constitution. if you need further clarification on this, please see the 14th Amendment.

          • afchief

            You are proving yourself to be a liar again. We have been over this umpteen times. The 14th has NOTHING to do with marriage. When it was written homosexuality was against the law in ALL states.

            Stop lying!!!

          • acontraryview

            “The 14th has NOTHING to do with marriage.”

            The 14th covers all laws – regardless of the topic. Marriage laws included.

            “When it was written homosexuality was against the law in ALL states.”

            How is that relevant?

            “Stop lying!!!”

            What did I say that was a lie? (and this is where you cease to respond because you can never back up your bearing of false witness against me).

          • afchief

            This is why you are a liar!!! You cannot read!!! When the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

            The U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

            STOP LYING!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “When the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union.”

            How is that relevant to the 14th Amendment applying to all state laws, not just state laws which aren’t related to marriage?

            “So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage”

            That was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, nor has any suggestion been made that it was. The intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that state laws did not violate protections provided by the Federal Constitution.

            “The U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states.”

            No, it does not. The Federal Constitution leaves the determination of marriage laws up to the States, as it does with many laws regarding many subjects. The Constitution also provides that laws at the state level are subject to judicial review regarding their Constitutionality.

            Let’s say, for example, Russ, that the citizens of the State of Utah pass a law that says that only Mormons are allowed to enter into civil marriage. if non-Mormons wanted to challenge that law on the basis that it violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law, according to your incorrect views on the 14th Amendment:

            1. They would have no basis for challenging the law, as the 14th Amendment doesn’t cover state marriage laws.
            2. The Federal Judiciary should not accept the case, as it deals with state marriage laws and thus is not an issue for the Federal Judiciary
            3. If the Federal Judiciary does accept the case and rules that the law violates the 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law, their ruling is null and void, as it is outside of their jurisdiction since it deals with state marriage laws.
            4. Non-Mormons in Utah would simply have to live with that law, be denied the right to marry, and have no recourse.

            Is that what you believe?

            “The U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.”

            Then you believe the ruling in Loving v Virginia was incorrect and that in order to for interracial marriage to be legal in all states, a Constitutional Amendment should have been required, yes?

            “STOP LYING!!!!!!”

            You have yet to cite anything I have said that is a lie. Why do you continue to bear false witness against me?

          • afchief

            BYE LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What portion of my post was a lie, Russ?

          • afchief

            YES YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!

            Let alone that the US Constitution does not mention Marriage anywhere. The Power is Not the Federal Government’s as the State’s have NEVER Enumerated that Power to the Federal Government BY Amendment. This falls under the 10th Amendment. The People have spoken in Referendum and have voted upon this. The 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship, The argument that the 14th applies is a FALSE argument.

          • acontraryview

            “YES YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!”

            Yet you have been unable to cite anything that i have said that is a lie. Why is that, Russ? Wouldn’t calling me a liar without being able to cite anything that i have said that is a lie, make you a liar?

            “The Power is Not the Federal Government’s as the State’s have NEVER Enumerated that Power to the Federal Government BY Amendment.”

            Nor has the Federal Government issued any laws regarding who is allowed to marry and who is not, nor does the SCOTUS ruling create any federal laws regarding who is allowed to marry and who is not. Therefore, your argument is moot.

            “The 14th Amendment does NOT apply as it was placed into the US Constitution for ONE reason ONLY and that was to Protect the Newly Freed Slaves and give ONLY them the Rights of Citizenship,”

            At the time of the debate on the 14th there was significant discussion about limiting the wording to include reference that it applied to only newly freed slaves. In the end, however, it was decided that equal protection under the law was so important that it should not be limited only to that group. if what you say is true, then any ruling that the court has handed down based upon 14th Amendment’s protection of equal treatment under the law that is NOT directly related to freed slaves, is null and void. Is that what you believe, Russ?

            “The argument that the 14th applies is a FALSE argument.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the amendment is clear in its wording. It does not apply to only “newly freed slaves”. It applies to all citizens and all laws.

          • afchief

            Yes you are a LIAR!!!!!

            The Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States. Relying on a single clause, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was designed to protect the rights of former slaves, the majority of the Court consisting of four political appointees and one “independent” made a decision “at odds not only with the Constitution but with the principles upon which our nation was built”, as Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. The majority decision held that all the states must give under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment the law of a single state declaring that homosexuals have the right to marry even when thirty states have laws that state that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to nullify a State’s law that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Kim Davis, the county clerk may refuse to marry homosexuals because the Supreme Court unconstitutionally exceeded its constitutional authority.

          • acontraryview

            Justice Thomas is certainly entitled to his opinion. None the less, the court’s ruling was 5-4 that laws banning citizens from entering into civil marriage based solely on gender violate protections provided by the Constitution. The ruling is final. There is no going back. Marriage between two citizens of the same gender is legal in all 50 states and there is no way to change that. You really should move on, Russ.

          • afchief

            Yes YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            14th Amendment – The first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was created to ensure legal equality among the citizens of every State. Adopted after the Civil War in 1868, it was meant to ensure legalized discrimination, like the sort the South would use against blacks until the 1960’s, was to be made forever illegal within the United States of America. If government is not legally permitted to discriminate between two people, how can it justify legalized discrimination between married and unmarried people in the form of say: Tax law? How can government justify legalized discrimination between gay and straight? Few have stepped up to answer these questions, but it is likely that all supposed “laws” which discriminate between Americans based upon marriage status and sexual preference may need to be stricken from the American legal code if all people in the United States are to be treated Constitutionally as legally equal.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            Common Sense: How the 10th Amendment Gave Us Gay Marriage

            6:00AM EST 12/31/2015 BOB ESCHLIMAN

            Let me preface this installment by saying this critique is not leveled at any one candidate, mainly because it deals with a position that is held by at least two presidential candidates, as well as many congressional candidates.

            The Tenth Amendment is indeed a wonderful addition to the Constitution of the United States, and it’s one I wish more Americans would pressure our elected representatives to follow more closely. For those who aren’t sure what it says, here it is:

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            The intent was to spell out, as clearly as possible, that unless the Constitution gave the federal government the authority to do something, it couldn’t. In those instances, the authority was granted to the states, or to the people themselves.

            The framers of the Constitution were big on self-governance and “rugged individualism” like that.

            So while the states held wide-ranging authority under the original intent of the Constitution, it was also widely understood that there were still limits to what states could do. But, that belief came with a very simple caveat, which John Adams identified quite succinctly:

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

            All too often, our school children are taught about only three branches of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary—but they ignore easily the most important: the people. “We the People” are supposed to be the ultimate check against tyranny.

            The submission to authority spelled out in the Romans 13, in a constitutional republic, is a two-way street. Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost our understanding of that reality, perhaps by design.

            So, the Tenth Amendment, while good and great, can lead to our downfall if we don’t have our priorities in order. A society that believes it’s perfectly fine with murdering the unborn, or allowing two people of the same gender to “marry,” is ill equipped to govern itself.

            As a native Iowan, I can show you firsthand how a Tenth Amendment approach to “gay marriage” led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell opinion that now threatens Christians’ rights to worship and live their lives in accordance with Jesus’ teachings. It all started a little more than 12 years ago—almost to the day.

            At that time, a Woodbury County District Court Judge by the name of Jeffrey A. Neary was handed an impossible task. At the time, Iowa did not allow same-gender couples to “marry.” In fact, Iowa had its own Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbid it.

            But, a couple other states did allow it. And because of a Tenth Amendment “solution” to the assault on traditional marriage—because of “50 state laws on marriage”—Judge Neary was asked to decide if a lesbian couple, who married in another state before moving to Iowa, could be granted a divorce.

            Judge Neary ultimately granted the divorce, which sent shockwaves throughout the state. Immediately, those who advocated for “gay marriage” in Iowa looked for ways to turn his ruling into a legal argument that would overturn Iowa’s DOMA law.

            It didn’t take long, either.

            Iowa doesn’t elect judges; they are all appointed by the governor, but the people get a chance to determine whether or not the judge should be retained periodically (first at the first election after appointment, then every 10 years thereafter). So, while the activists were seeking a legal avenue to overturn Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Neary came up for a retention vote.

            Woodbury County is a part of a district court circuit that encompasses much of northwest Iowa, sometimes referred to as “The Bible Belt of Iowa.” In spite of that, those attempting to remove Judge Neary from the bench couldn’t find enough voters to throw him out.

            Once again, the activists took note—and action.

            Just five years after Judge Neary decided to grant the lesbians a divorce—almost to the day—the activists had their day in front of the Iowa Supreme Court, making oral arguments that the state’s DOMA law violated the “equal protection” of same-gendered couples’ “civil rights.” No one bothered to argue that our rights are inherent and derived from God, so the notion that government can bestow rights that didn’t previously exist prevailed.

            And, in April of 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court released the unanimous opinion—now know as the “Varnum Decision”—the “gay marriage” was a right that must be protected by the government.

            There was outrage, to be sure. Bob Vander Plaats (who was my seventh grade basketball coach) of The FAMiLY LEADER and several pastors across Iowa launched an effort to remove the justices from the bench, beginning with the three who stood for retention in the next election held in November of 2010.

            That effort succeeded, but it did nothing to reverse the dangerous notions laid out in the Varnum Decision. And with the election of a “new” governor—Republican Terry Branstad, who returned after a 12-year retirement—no new gains were made to reverse the court’s opinion.

            “Gay marriage” became the “law” in Iowa, even though not a single Iowa voter had a say in the matter, either directly or in the process of choosing their elected representatives in the General Assembly. And it happened all because of “50 state laws” and a Tenth Amendment view on governance.

            Two years later, when a fourth member of the Iowa Supreme Court came up for a retention vote, the “throw him out” effort failed miserably. And when a couple more come up for retention in 2016, I highly doubt anyone’s even going to even bother trying to launch a statewide effort.

            Christians have the answer to the Tenth Amendment “solution”: no government has the authority to commit evil. But we face a society that: a) has no idea what evil is, b) has no idea where to go to find out, c) is too self-absorbed to care that civil authority has run amok, and d) is too lazy to do anything about it.

            So, until we fix what’s wrong with our nation spiritually, the Tenth Amendment won’t work, either.

          • acontraryview

            It was good of you to finally note whose words you were preventing, rather than putting forth the lie that you wrote them.

            “No one bothered to argue that our rights are inherent and derived from God,”

            Of course they didn’t because such an argument has no legal basis. Although it would have been fun to watch a lawyer attempt to make that argument. Our rights as citizens come from the Constitution, not from the Christian god.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!!

            You need a serious class on the study of the constitution. The 10th amendment is the key. States were delegated the sovereign right to make laws in regards to states desires. In practice, the “powers”, meaning laws, delegated to the states and the people, relate to laws relating to family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), Trade (buying and selling) and business that occurs within the borders of individual states and local law enforcement activities. The 14th amendment is not a right but does guarantee the privilege to life, liberty and property not the right to gay marriage. The equal protection stated in the 14th amendment ensures that states enforce life, liberty and property with equal protection to all not gay marriage.

            The federal government does not regulate marriage. States do. Life, liberty and property have nothing to do with marriage. Remember the 14th is a guaranteed privilege not a right and to have due process of the same. The only rights that are granted in the constitution are the first 10 amendments.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!!”

            Please cite one thing I have said that is a lie.

            Again with the plagiarizing (lying) Russ. Tsk, tsk.

            “The equal protection stated in the 14th amendment ensures that states enforce life, liberty and property with equal protection to all not gay marriage.”

            No. The equal protection clause in the 14th requires that state laws not be found to violate equal protection under law in the absence of rational, compelling, and legal valid reasons for not providing equal protection. It matters not what the subject is.

            “The federal government does not regulate marriage. States do.”

            Agreed. That is why there is no federal law regarding who is allowed to marry and who is not. State laws on marriage, as with all other subjects, must not violate the Constitution’s protection of equal treatment under the law.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            So you keep claiming but you never provide any proof. How do you reconcile your supposed belief in Christianity with your ongoing bearing of false witness?

          • afchief

            Oh yes I have NUMEROUS times how the 14th amendment does NOT apply to marriage. But you continue to lie with liberal talking points. You do NOT know the Constitution or Constitutional law. It is quite obvious!!! You continuously lie about it and I’m not wasting my time anymore.

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Oh yes I have NUMEROUS times how the 14th amendment does NOT apply to marriage. ”

            Yes, you have said that, but you are mistaken. The 14th Amendment applies to all laws – marriage and otherwise. To suggest that it does not is simply a lie.

            “But you continue to lie with liberal talking points. ”

            Please point to one thing I have said that is a lie. All you seem capable of is bearing false witness in your accusations. If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, as least be man enough to back up your claim, Russ. Or are you not man enough to do that?

          • afchief

            LOL!!! This is why you are a LIAR!!! When the 14th was passed homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. Even women needed the 19th amendment to vote.

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            “When the 14th was passed homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. Even women needed the 19th amendment to vote.”

            I never stated that either of those things were not true. They are true. So, no, your posting that is not proof that i have lied.

            Apparently, Russ, you are not man enough to back up your accusations. Unfortunate. Not surprising, but still unfortunate.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            Let us use common sense here: The 14th Amendment was addressing the issue of freed-slaves, who were formerly property and never anything but property according to the U.S. Constitution, hence the 3/5 Clause. The existence of the 14th amendment was solely due to the question of how to transition slaves from property to freedom, while affording them citizenship without forcing them to be subjects — which would be in violation of the Constitution and a violation of the Natural, Unalienable, Individual Rights of every human being — that no human being may be made a subject of any other human being. Are we to believe that the authors of that Amendment would make them SUBJECTS as an answer to “How do we transition slaves from property to freed-men?” In a country that cannot make a SUBJECT out of anyone by the wording of its own written Constitution? In those authors’ words, this would be preposterous. Property > Free-Man > Subject? Again, preposterous.

            Yet this is how “Progressives” have perverted the Constitution and this is how THEY are now reading it:

            “As slaves transitioned from property to freed-men, the 14th Amendment was devised to address that transition. And their solution was to make former slaves (formerly property) into subjects, thereby depriving them of the freedom they were just granted via the Emancipation Proclamation. By making them subjects, we are also denying their inherent natural rights, which dictate that a governing body can do no such thing — anytime, anywhere.”

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!”

            You do realize that putting words in all caps and including multiple exclamation points doesn’t prove anything, right? If I am a liar, please point out one thing that i have said that is a lie.

            It’s fascinating that you accuse me of lying while at the same time you continuously attempt to plagiarize (a form of lying) in your posts. In the one above, you are plagiarizing from a blog post on the American Thinker. How do you reconcile your lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            And the 14th amendment does NOT cover gay marriage, period! When the Founders put in the amendment process it was for changing the Constitution when the need arises by amendment. The reasons for the 14th Amendment were handled by it and it is a brick wall. A wall that you cannot go back jump over insert things that were never there or take things out that were there all the time and be Constitutional. If the court upholds gay marriage as Constitutional it is tyranny for they are amending the Constitution and that is something they have no right to do.

            In the first case the Slaughterhouse Rules Case where the 14th amendment was attempted to be used both Chief Justice Miller in the majority opinion and Justice Field in the minority opinion agreed that the 14th gave no new privileges or immunities to the people

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            Supreme Court decisions which overthrow State abortion or marriage laws (among other legitimate State laws) violates the U.S. Constitution – specifically those decisions violate the 10th amendment – because power over abortion or marriage is not granted to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution – those powers therefore fall to the States under the 10th amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has nullified the U.S. Constitution by violating it – by violating and nullifying the 10th amendment. One immediate remedy for the States, if they wish, is to nullify, via their legislatures, any un-Constitutional Supreme Court decision (or any un-Constitutional Federal Law, Executive order or regulation). State nullification of un-Constitutional Federal nullification is State affirmation of the Constitution.

          • acontraryview

            “One immediate remedy for the States, if they wish, is to nullify, via their legislatures, any un-Constitutional Supreme Court decision ”

            No, that is not a valid remedy. The States are not allowed to do so.

          • Trivia Jockey

            You’re confusing two different powers. It is true that powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states. But that has NOTHING to do with the federal judiciary’s power to REVIEW LAWS to ensure that state laws do not violate the Constitution.

            The Supreme Court hears numerous cases every single year on issues that Congress doesn’t have the power to regulate directly.

            To summarize: the federal courts’ ability to review laws is NOT limited to only those powers that Congress has.

            I’ll give you an example: the Heller decision. Congress clearly can’t enact gun bans, but Washington D.C. enacted a local gun ban. The Supreme Court reviewed that law and struck it down as unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            The SCOTUS cannot strike down any laws. It only renders opinions, period!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

            For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

            The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Trivia Jockey

            That article refers to ENFORCEMENT, not the Court having the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

            It’s like this: You are in a car accident, the other driver sues you, and there’s a judgement against you for $1,000. The Court’s judgment is valid and has the force of law, but the judge doesn’t have the ability to come off the bench, come to your house, and collect the money himself. The sheriff does that if you refuse to pay. But that doesn’t mean the Court’s decision isn’t binding.

            You keep copying and pasting this one source, when people have provided you with literally over a dozen sources otherwise.

          • afchief

            That is a different type of court…..civil court. We are talking about federal courts i.e. the SCOTUS.

            No one has cited any sources to prove me otherwise. What I say IS the truth. To prove my point I will paste the part of the Constitution that covers the SCOTUS. Show me where in Article III it states the SCOTUS can strike down laws.

            Waiting……………………………………………………………………

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • afchief

            Yes,YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            Amendment XIV

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Marriage is not a right, it is not listed in the federal constitution as such and (as far as I know) it is not listed in any state constitution as a right. Marriage is a priviledge and IS subject to State Laws. The equal protection clause deals with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suppose you want to include same sex marriage under the pursuit of happiness column. I can assure you that had same sex marriage been an issue in 1868 the legislature would have made sure to address it specifically.

            Marriage, regardless of pairing, is not a right. If that were the case then any combination of a “couple” would be legal if your argument is valid. Marriage is a privilege and is subject to state law. That is why you need a marriage license to get married. Without one you are not considered married by the government. The exception would be common-law marriage which is accepted in some states.

            The constitution does not give the federal government the power to define marriage.

            Republicans (and Democrats) gave the federal government the power to define marriage with DOMA. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the federal government does not have that power and invalidated DOMA because that power is not given to the federal government by the constitution. It is reserved for the states. That is the law. You cannot have it both ways.

            Since we have determined that State Law trumps Federal Law in this case, it is therefore a VALID conclusion that the Federal Courts cannot invalidate a State Law that defines something that is a state’s issue. Regardless of how bad you want it or how loud your scream that it is unfair. You want your cake and eat it too? Get an Amendment to the federal constitution that defines marriage in America as anything you like. Barring that, expect to lose the argument in a court of law unless you can pack the court with liberal justices that would prefer to shove their ideology down the American throat than interpret the constitution.

            Bigot indeed! It is the rule of law that I am concerned with. The fact that my belief are supported by it is proof that the people who wrote the laws thought as I do.

          • acontraryview

            “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            And there you have it, Russ. The law allows for citizens to enter into marriage. Denying that right to citizens based solely upon gender people equal protection under the law. Thanks for proving my point.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            A marriage is a relationship, not a person. Among themselves, males have equal rights, under law, to marry females, and vice versa. Does the 14th Amendment give a right to have a harem of wives? By what “logic?” Can these rights be conveyed and mixed, like a credit default swap that is swapped around several times a day? Is the Gov some kind of captured third party contractual beneficiary pimp and obligor? Can A marry B and C, while B is married to D and E and F, while F is married to an entire commune, while E is married to whoever???

          • acontraryview

            “A marriage is a relationship, not a person”

            Civil marriage is a legal contract entered into by citizens.

            “Among themselves, males have equal rights, under law, to marry females, and vice versa.”

            They also have the right to marry other males, just as females have the right to marry other females.

            “Does the 14th Amendment give a right to have a harem of wives?”

            Nope.

            Here’s the scoop, Russ: Same gender marriage is legal in all 50 states. It is not ever going to become illegal. You should move on.

          • afchief

            BYE LIAR!!!

            I will not even read your garbage, because I know you have been given over to a reprobate mind and given over to lies.

            I will not waste my time!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Why do you keep calling me a liar when you are unable to cite anything I said that is a lie? Do you not have concerns about bearing false witness?

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!!

            The 14th Amendment was specifically proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. Nothing else. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues it has been since cited for with lots of creative interpretations.

            The 14th amendment was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to Homosexual’s Marriages or ANYTHING ELSE!!.

            The 14th concerns issues of freed slaves. Even women had to wait until the 19th Amendment for a constitutional right to vote.

          • afchief

            Yes, YOU are a LIAR!!!

            And at no place or time does the 14th Amendment say or require that another state must recognize a license issued from another state. Case in point the state issued Concealed Carry Licenses. Now if what the SSM supporters say is true, then anyone with a state issued CCW license can go to any state and that state would have to recognize this license as a valid one issued by their state even if they have no such license program. And we all know that this does not happen. A medical person with a state license should be able to go to another state and practice there, but we know that does not happen either as some states demand more training, something they should not be able to do if the argument the SSM supporters are using for the 14th Amendment is true.

            The ONLY thing the 14th Amendment says is this, so PLEASE show us where it says that one state must recognize state licenses from another state:

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Section 2.

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age,and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

            Section 3.

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            Section 4.

            The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

            Section 5.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

          • gogo0

            same place in the constitution where it says that marriage is between only a man and a woman

          • afchief

            You just proved my point how dumb liberals are!!!! LOL!!! Marriage is mentioned in States Constitutions. Why? Because it is not mentioned in the federal Constitution. So the States put it in their respective Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            Yes, more proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • gogo0

            still not a liberal, but I would rather have that “mental disease” than whatever you’ve got, chief

          • afchief

            You must be a homo then. Both are mental disorders!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Show me where in the Constitution marriage is mentioned.”

            It’s not. What does that prove?

          • afchief

            That marriage is a state issue in accordance with the 10th amendment. It is not a federal issue.

          • acontraryview

            No one has ever suggested that marriage laws are federal. They are not. There are no federal marriage laws.

            How is that relevant to the ability of the federal judiciary to rule on the Constitutionality of state law?

          • afchief

            Yes, you are a liar!!! You think the 14th amendment applies to homo marriage. That IS a lie!!!!!

            “In his scathing rebuke of the ruling, Scalia said that the majority had reached “an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

            He noted that at the time the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, “every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” which makes it extraordinarily suspicious that the 2015 court could suddenly find differently.

            In what amounted to a brief history lesson, Scalia underscored the gravity of the Court’s action by comparing it to England’s treatment of the American colonies that ignited the movement for American independence. The justice said that in its hubris, the majority decision had carried out a more serious offense than the one that sparked the Boston Tea Party and later the American Revolution itself.

            Indeed, wrote Scalia, “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

            When the Supreme Court no longer acts like a judicial body and instead usurps the power to enact legislation, as it did in its infamous June 26 ruling, it radically oversteps its mandate and is worthy of nothing but scorn.

            As millions of Americans pause to bid farewell to this brilliant and outspoken legal scholar and judge, his warnings of the dangers of judicial activism must not fall on deaf ears. In an election year, the direction of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance.”

          • acontraryview

            “You think the 14th amendment applies to homo marriage. That IS a lie!!!!!”

            No, it is not a lie. Please cite where the 14th Amendment is limited to applying to all laws except marriage laws.

            Scalia was certainly entitled to his opinion. Please note in his comments that he never suggested that the court was not empowered to rule on the Constitutional of state marriage laws, which is what you have been stating.

            “He noted that at the time the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, “every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so,” which makes it extraordinarily suspicious that the 2015 court could suddenly find differently.”

            What was legal or illegal in the past is of no consequence. When the 14th amendment was passed, interracial marriage was illegal in most states. Yet, in 1973, the court invalidated remaining laws banning interracial marriage. Utilizing Scalia’s argument, they should not have ruled in that way.

            “When the Supreme Court no longer acts like a judicial body and instead usurps the power to enact legislation”

            Dr. Williams’ comments – which you plagiarized – are false as the Supreme Court did not enact legislation in its ruling.

          • afchief

            Yes YOU are a LIAR!!! What part of the 14th amendment do you NOT understand?!?!?!??!

            It was written in 1866 when homosexuality was against the law in ALL states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Is that too hard for you little homo cranium to understand?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

          • Trivia Jockey

            The 14th Amendment applies to all laws, regardless of topic. If laws violate the principle of equal protection, they can be invalidated.

            Yes, the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention marriage. But the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention real estate transactions, either — but you well know that if a state passed a law that said only white people can own property, that law would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

          • afchief

            LOL!!! That is why the states have had a marriage clause in their respective Constitutions for decades and hundreds of years in accordance with the 10th amendment.

            The 14th does NOT cover marriages period.

          • Trivia Jockey

            The 14th Amendment applies to any law, at any level of government, that denies people equal protection of the law. Do you really think that it would be legal for a state to pass a law saying only white people could get married, for example? Of course not, such a law would be struck down as a violation of the equal protection clause.

            Have you ever taken a political science or law class? If so, I would love to know the name of the institution(s).

          • afchief

            Silly homo! When the 14th amendment was passed homosexuality was against the law in ALL states. The 14th amendment was placed into the Constitution to provide Freed Slaves with US Citizenship. Due Process Right before the Ratification of the 14th Amendment was not conferred to Slaves. The Equal Treatment was to confer Citizenship Rights to FREED Slaves. The Context of the Amendment was to Freed Slaves Rights, NOT to Homosexual’s Marriages or ANYTHING ELSE!!. That Power is left to the States under the 10th Amendment, as the States have never Enumerated that power TO the Federal Government BY Amendment. Not even the SCOTUS has the Power to even hear this case as the Power is left to the States.

            KNOW THE LAW!!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            I’m going to ask a very simple question, I would appreciate a straight answer…

            I’m sure you would agree that the federal government has no power to regulate local real estate transactions. So assume Oklahoma passes a law that says only Caucasian people can purchase property. Does that law violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

          • afchief

            Another liberal who has NO idea how law is made in the US. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people.

            If the people of a state get enough petitions to put a proposed law on a ballot and bring it to a vote and it passes it then becomes law. It the people of the state vote to say that only white people can purchase property in that state it then is the law.

            I know you are grasping at straws, because something like that would never make it to a ballot. But, marriage has and states have voted for marriage between one man and one woman. That is the law of the state and can only be broken by another petition put on a ballot to change it.

            That is the way law works in our country. Five judges CANNOT make, change or strike down the “will” (vote) of millions of people. It is unconsitutional.

          • Trivia Jockey

            “It the people of the state vote to say that only white people can purchase property in that state it then is the law.”

            Checkmate. lol

            No state, even if by referendum (vote of the people), can maintain a law that violates the Constitution.

            The federal courts certainly have enforced the equal protection clause against the states numerous times. For example, Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Nixon v. Herndon (voting rights by race), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and Shelley v. Kraemer (real estate covenants based on race).

          • afchief

            Nope! Interracial marriage laws were in the Constitutions of several states before the states voted on removing them. Alabama voted on removing interracial marriage back in 2000.

            KNOW THE LAW!!!!

          • acontraryview

            It is pointless to argue with ignorance. You are ignorant of the law. You are ignorant of the Constitution. You are ignorant of the role of the judiciary.

            The reality is that same-gender marriage is legal in all 50 states and nothing is going to change that. You might as well move on.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes YOU are a LIAR!!!”

            Yet again, Russ, I’ll ask that you cite what I have said that was a lie.

            “What part of the 14th amendment do you NOT understand?!?!?!??!”

            No part. I understand all of it. You, on the other hand, lack an understanding of it.

            “It was written in 1866 when homosexuality was against the law in ALL states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

            Regardless of how many exclamation points you use, that fact is irrelevant.

          • afchief

            Yes YOU are a LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            The Supreme Court is BANNED from making a new law under Article 1 Section 1, nor can they base a “right” on something that has never before existed in the US Constitution…as the Constitution does not grant anyone the right to marry. As such the Supreme Court is banned from allowing a Constitutional right to SSM under Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution.

            And at no place or time does the 14th Amendment say or require that another state must recognize a license issued from another state. Case in point the state issued Concealed Carry Licenses. Now if what the SSM supporters say is true, then anyone with a state issued CCW license can go to any state and that state would have to recognize this license as a valid one issued by their state even if they have no such license program. And we all know that this does not happen. A medical person with a state license should be able to go to another state and practice there, but we know that does not happen either as some states demand more training, something they should not be able to do if the argument the SSM supporters are using for the 14th Amendment is true.

            The ONLY thing the 14th Amendment says is this, so PLEASE show us where it says that one state must recognize state licenses from another state:

            Section 1.

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Section 2.

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age,and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

            Section 3.

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            Section 4.

            The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
            illegal and void.

            Section 5.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

          • acontraryview

            “The Supreme Court is BANNED from making a new law”

            So SCOTUS did not make a new law, so we’re good to go on that issue.

            “As such the Supreme Court is banned from allowing a Constitutional right to SSM under Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution.”

            That is false.

            “And at no place or time does the 14th Amendment say or require that another state must recognize a license issued from another state.”

            Correct. That is found under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

            “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • gizmo23

            What do you care? They can’t make law anyway

    • Guest

      The longest it has taken in all of US history to confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominee is 150 days, it is 300 till the election.

      The president will submit a qualified candidate and it is the job of the Senate to approve one on their qualities, not blatant foot dragging as partisan political maneuvering – that will lead to a massive defeat in the presidential election because moderates won’t stand for a party that is only concerned for itself.

    • gizmo23

      If the court rules with only 8 a tie means that the lower court decision stands. Those courts have not been friendly to conservatives

    • afchief

      The Drudge Report is saying that SCALIA FOUND DEAD WITH ‘PILLOW OVER HEAD’

      Hmmmmm………Pelican Brief?

      • Josey

        I read some of those articles today, is very suspicious, I thought so the moment I heard of his death. Scalia was against Obama’s constitutional overreach and he was just recently against Obama’s energy plans that would cost Americans a lot of money in energy costs and not change a thing as far as pollution goes.

        • afchief

          What gets me is why is there no autopsy? Something stinks!!! I would not put this past 0bama to do something like this. The man is evil!

          • gogo0

            I voted against Obama twice, but wow, it amazes me the level of immaturity some of you have when it comes to him.
            spelling his name with a Zero? come on, that is some elementary school playground-level stuff.
            Calling him evil and believing that he would assassinate a supreme court judge? that’s just stupid
            the fact that you cant argue without lowering yourself to an elementary school level and only showing (mock) maturity when plagiarizing other people’s writing is why you receive no respect, afchief. its comical

          • afchief

            Well El Residente Dingle Barry is evil. The man has no morals. He is anti-American. He is anti-Christian. Osamabama is pro Muslim.

            The man is a disgrace to the office of the presidency and should be in prison.

    • afchief

      0bama is coming after our guns before his term is up. Watch!

      The National Rifle Association has come out since Scalia’s death to warn that the 2nd Amendment is now in danger. With Barack Obama reportedly willing to spend billions of dollars in 2017 to take away Americans rights we have to ask, did the Obama administration have Judge Scalia killed? It surely wouldn’t be the 1st time govt had political oppostion killed.

      http://allnewspipeline. com/They_Killed_Judge_Scalia.php

      • acontraryview

        You are allowed to have a gun? Really? You must be thrilled that neither knowledge of the law nor not falsely accusing others of lying is required to own a gun.

        • afchief

          You are a liar!!!

          • acontraryview

            Please cite what portion of my post was a lie.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    Hopefully President Obama will quickly nominate a replacement.

  • acontraryview

    it’s truly unfortunate that this has been politicized so quickly. i can only imagine the outrage of Republicans if this had occurred when a Republican was president and Democrats were demanding that the outgoing president wait until after the election.

    • afchief

      February 14, 2016

      Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

      By Thomas Lifson

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker. com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40DlGOjte

      • acontraryview

        A bad move on the part of Democrats in 1960 and one which Republicans strongly objected to arguing that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Which is exactly what I stated above.

        • afchief

          Hopefully, McConnell and the rest of the RINOs block any El Residente Dingle Barry appointee until next year.

          • acontraryview

            They can certainly try. With that said, it will not bode well for them if Obama submits a highly qualified person to serve and the Republicans are viewed as blocking the appointment for purely partisan reasons.

            in addition, the President can make a recess appointment without the approval of Congress.

            Further, be careful what you wish for. There are a number of very important cases before the court. In the event of a 4-4 vote on those cases, the lower court ruling stands. Many of those lower court rulings are not consistent with what conservatives want.

            Finally, as history has taught us, the political views of the president regarding who is nominated and appointed to the court is not always reflected in the voting record of that Justice, as is clear with John Roberts, as well as many others.

          • afchief

            The only way Osamabama seats the next SCOTUS justice is if the RINO senators fall on their swords for Dingle Barry.

            http://judicialnominations. org/how-the-confirmation-process-works

            https://en.m.wikipedia. org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

            Under this senario

            The presidential authority at issue in this possible scenario exists, according to Article II, when the Senate has gone into recess and the vacancy a president seeks to fill remains. Such an appointment requires no action at all by the Senate, but the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session. The president (if still in office) can then try again during a new Senate session, by making a new nomination, and that must be reviewed by the Senate.

            http://www.scotusblog. com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

          • acontraryview

            That assumes that the Republicans maintain control of Congress. Not a foregone conclusion. Nor is it assured that a Republican will be elected president. To hold up a nomination to the court purely for political purposes is not good governing.

          • afchief

            Since this lying, lawless, anti-America, anti-Christian traitor nominated them, it would be a compelling enough reason to reject them.

          • acontraryview

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • acontraryview

            Why do you care? You have stated that the SCOTUS only issues opinions and that those opinions do not change anything. So what does it matter who serves on the court?

          • BarkingDawg

            So the presidential term is only 3 years now?

          • afchief

            I would rather have a president select a lawyer who will uphold the Constitution instead of a lawyer who is a liberal, godless, anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, socialist, homo approving, transgender apologist, Muslim sympathizer, Climate delusionists, illegal immigrant sympathizer, feminist, police hater, baby murdering scumbag!

          • BarkingDawg

            You forgot “Freemason.”

            LOL

          • hamfish

            Yes, but you seem unaware that absolutely no-one cares what inbred, reactionary idiots like you think. Just putting that out there.

      • acontraryview

        By the way, that headline: “Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments” is false.

        The resolution referenced stated: “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

        It singled out recess appointments only and made no mention of being applicable only during an “election year”.

  • FoJC_Forever

    If he could talk to you now, he would tell you to forsake vain religion and quit trusting in politics and government. He would tell you to follow Jesus, rather then the false teachings of people and the Devil. He would tell you that no manner of public displays of religious belief will save you from your Sin.

    Never idolize someone because they died.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Asemodeus

      “Never idolize someone because they died.

      Follow Jesus, find Truth.”

      Wow. That’s some cognitive dissonance right there.

  • Angel Jabbins

    Just another sign of the coming judgment soon to fall upon our nation because we have abandoned God and His will in our lives and government.

    John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stated:

    “We have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice:

    “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”

    Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

    “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

    And masters we shall have….despots on the horizon and freedom soon to be a memory. How quickly we threw it all away….

  • Nidalap

    No autopsy? This wasn’t some paw paw found collapsed at the farmhouse, this was a Supreme Court justice! It may very well have been a heart attack, but this is terribly suspicious…

    • BarkingDawg

      The man was 79, overweight, a smoker with known heart problems.

      What’s so suspicious about that?

  • Stephen Tuck

    What makes this amusing to a papist like me is watching “biblical Christians” fondness for Scalia override their near-pathological hatred of Roman Catholics.

    • Dan Horsley

      Seriously? I know lots of biblical Christians, I don’t know any who have a “near-pathological hatred of Roman Catholics.” It’s 2016, evangelicals and RCs unite on many issues, such as being pro-life. You may encounter a few crackpots on the internet spewing their hate at Catholics, but I assure you they do not represent the main stream of evangelicalism. Chuck Colson, an evangelical, and Richard John Neuhaus, an RC priest, formed a close bond and worked to build up amity between the two groups.

      • Stephen Tuck

        That might be so, Dan, but I’m afraid I haven’t met many of them. Reading stories and comments on even more-or-less mainstream sites like this one, a Catholic will be told that they are not a Christian, that the Pope is the Antichrist (a tired allegation, having been made against every pope since Leo X), that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, that we’re idolators, or closet followers of Baal, and a great deal more besides. Attempts to explain Catholic practice get the accusation of being “seducers with fine-sounding words and smiles” and “wordsmithing”. You will understand why we might conclude that we’re viewed as the enemy.

        • Dan Horsley

          OK, you’re judging by what you read on the web, and I’m judging by the actual evangelical Christians I know personally. Blogs tend to attract extremist types, and some of these people posing as evangelical Christians may not have set foot inside in church for 20 years, they may just enjoy in Catholic-bashing. There are plenty of atheist trolls out there who will pose as evangelicals on one thread and bash Catholics, then reverse roles on a different blog. The anonymity of blogs brings out the mean in people. Someone who poses as a bigot on the web may be much nicer in person.

          I’m a bridge-builder, not a wall-builder. I’m a Protestant, but I have lots more in in common with an orthodox Catholic than I do with a liberal Protestant. I don’t know who is going to hell, I leave those decisions to God.

      • Bob Johnson

        Check out the Christian News article six days ago titled “‘Pope Francis’ Calls for Collaboration…” Many of the 433 comments will attest to views of the Catholic Church. However, the fact that the article itself puts quotes around Pope Frances says a lot.

  • Joe Soap

    Americans spend so much time and money electing presidents, senators, congressmen yet the country is apparently governed by an unelected 9 member court.

    Maybe if America hadn’t set up a completely dysfunctional, unworkable, gerrymandered, gridlocked system and had a government that actually GOVERNED replacing a dead judge wouldn’t be such a crisis.