The Gay Marriage Ruling Supports the Baker

By Tom Trinko December 6, 2017

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was not only legal but mandated by the Constitution, the majority were declaring that the Constitution meant whatever the majority of the Supreme Court wanted it to mean. It was an exercise is pure totalitarianism and a rejection of the very idea that power flows from the people.

Nonetheless, because of a desire to cover judicial overreach with sophistries that the elite leftist media could use to confuse the people as to just how much the people’s freedom was eroded by the Court’s capricious decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following, gaining the concurrence of five other member sof the Court:........ the Court now faces a quandary. They can either ignore what they wrote in Obergefell or they can refuse to impose the moral view of the left on all Americans by upholding the First Amendment rights of those who don’t wish to be forced to support something that is in direct contradiction to their “…choices that define personal identity and belief.”..........To Read More....

Clarence Thomas facepalm: Oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop - An eyewitness describes oral arguments in the notorious First Amendment case.............. The case demonstrates the entanglement of public accommodation laws protecting sexual orientation and fundamental American freedoms.

Passions run skyscraper-high on both sides of the argument, but yesterday's oral argument began with a polite, quiet question from Justice Ginsburg trying to clarify whether it makes a difference that the cake at issue in the case was specifically commissioned for a wedding, so-called, and not purchased off the shelf.

A great deal of confusion followed. Then Justices Kagan and Sotomayor administered a pop quiz, naming foods, art, buildings, and creative enterprises and demanding to know if the objects or general categories of study they posed are expression and, therefore, protected speech under the First Amendment.   At one point, Justice Thomas covered his face with his full palm at the incomplete responses and failures to get to the relevant...............To Read More....

My Take - Where in the Constitution does it say it's the Supreme Court who decides what the Constitution means?  Nowhere!  That has been an usurpation of the separation of powers by the federal judiciary going back from early on, but it became virulent with the FDR administration and has continued almost unabated ever since.  Can the Congress stop it?  Yes.  But, first they have to have the courage to overrule the Supreme Court by passing a law overturning some decision.  The Court has no power to enforce anything, that's the responsibility of the Executive.  The Constitution gave the court no authority to legislate from the bench, that's the perogative of the Legislative.  The Judiciary is to rule accordingly. 

These kinds of cases only become complicated because they created unique wording and logic to promote some cause or other to make something right that's not right, or something wrong that not wrong.  It like lying.  Eventually you can't make up enough stuff to cover one lie -  with another lie - with another lie without exposing the lie for what it is.  A lie! The federal judicary is out of control and needs reformed drastically. 

It's time for a 28th Amendment placing term and age limits on the federal judiciary, which is filled with nothing by political hacks who will be paid for life while being incompetent and corrupt.  It's time to end that.