‘Supremes Set to Judge God’ (2012)

See the source image

Remember how happy certain pro-family/Christian groups were, years ago, when the Supreme Court decided to take, finally, a “definition of marriage” case? Some of ’em were turning cartwheels over it.


How did that turn out, then?

Sometimes I feel like Ian Malcom in Jurassic Park: sometimes I really hate being right.

Could we please not let the Supreme Court rewrite any more of our most ancient, sacred, and God-ordained societal institutions?

5 comments on “‘Supremes Set to Judge God’ (2012)

  1. Forgive me if I chuckle at your blessed optimism. “LET” the Supreme Court? As if we could stop the ruin of our once traditional Christian culture by the ruling leftist, one-world humanist-atheists!

    The courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular have become what Jefferson feared ~ and “end around” the Will of the People. Of course, the will of the people and the Constitution (a document put in place through the conniving of those Founders like Hamilton who rejected any limitation of a central government’s powers!) was killed once and for all by Abraham Lincoln, but like any good corpse, it was able to keep the semblance of existence for a considerable period of time subsequent to its demise.

    No, I fear that there is really NOTHING available to us absent an armed uprising (in which we would find the enormous power of the Deep State sent against us!) that will prevent the continued destruction of what once was to make way for the ruling elite’s desire for a one-world anti-Christian government. But then, I believe that the prophecies concerning the Anti-christ require such a situation for his arising.

  2. “Since the Judicial Branch is merely a “creature” of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution;[3] and as a mere “creature” of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence![4]

    “2. In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows the Judicial Branch must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce its judgments. If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment and mindful of his Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, determines that an opinion of a federal court is unconstitutional; his Duty is to refuse to enforce it. *The President is also competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution! Refusing to enforce their unconstitutional judgments is his “check” on the Judicial Branch.”

    1. It’s a pity no one imagined, at the time of our founding, that judges on American courts would ever cite foreign laws as the basis for a ruling. Liberal judges do that a lot.

    2. Yes indeed. We borrowed from English law; we didn’t come under it. However, the Federalists did argue for a more stringent control over the judiciary. But Jefferson won out over Hamilton.

Leave a Reply