Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is now a dissenter of the Supreme Court itself. After the 5-4 ruling on Friday that states same-sex marriage is constitutional in all 50 states, Scalia has called out the SCOTUS as threat to democracy – that the Court has become the ‘rulers’ of all Americans.
KEEP READING:
Agreed.
I think 105 “likes” might be a record for me. Thank you all so very much. Very humbling. 🙂
Can you see this, Alison Blakely?
If it isn’t the Supreme Court, it is Obama trying to create law without Congress!
I think 105 “likes” may be a record for me. Thank you all so much. Quite humbling. Bless you all.
Yep…
I think you’ll find my next comment related. Most of it I attribute to Dr. Ron Paul.
Until 1964, civil rights had traditionally worked in tandem with civil liberties. Civil liberties are basic rights and freedoms that are recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, generally understood as protections for citizens against government abuse of power- for example, the free exercise of speech,, assembly, and nonviolent civil disobedience. The latter was a tactic practiced by Rosa Parks and latter by the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr. By challenging the injustice of segregation and refusing to give up her seat, Rosa Parks became an icon for a generation.
The passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 defined civil rights as government protection from unequal treatment based on race. As the bill moved through congress,, its scope was broadened to include other categories of people besides racial minorities- ie women and religious minorities. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The intentions that motivated the passage of the Civil Rights Act were considered noble by most Americans. They were beginning to embrace the view that hating another person based on his race (racism) is wrong. However, there were some who argued against the passage of the Civil Rights Act, not because of racism, but because of a few fundamental objections.
The Civil Rights Act (64) contained a section (Title II) which Mandated protection against discrimination for minorities at “Places of Public Accommodation” or any entity engaged in interstate commerce. It exempted private clubs but did not define what that term meant.
In practice, this meant that private businesses which were open to the general public,, such as hotels, bars, and movie theaters, would be subject to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Opponents of the bill based their objections on this, and argued that it is a violation of the property rights of private business pieces to subject them yo the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. However morally reprehensible racism may be, they argued, it is not the proper role of government to legislate morality.
They argued that bigoted business owners wood be at a natural disadvantage compared to tolerant ones,,bc they would lose out on all of the business they might get from whatever group they discriminate against. Customers would always be free to boycott a business that they viewed as unfairly discriminatory,, as had been a common tactic on the Black civil rights movement.
Business owners are just as much citizens with just as much rights as customers or would be customers and should be able to boycott as well.
I find it interesting that a boycott is a form of discrimination.
Opponents of the Civil Rights Act did not object to the abolition of government-enforced segregation or discriminatory laws. Rather, it was the intrusion on the property rights of private businesses and attempts to legislate morality that drew their criticism.
You cannot pass a law that will make me like you or you like me. This is something that can only happen in our hearts. This is a problem of the mind, not a problem of the lawyer and Senator.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intend the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. The act was clearly unconstitutional, and a constitutionalist honoring his oath of office would accordingly have no other choice but to vote against the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goal of promoting racial harmony and a color blind society.
Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only was the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the CRA 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees.
Shortcutting the deliberative process and working outside constitutional limits led to a law that worsened racial strife, and not surprisingly increased the power of federal bureaucrats. The policy of racial quotas has not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years but this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And back to me…lol
I love the people whom I know engage in homosexual activity. I would help defend them against hate, aggression, & bullying. Much of this comes from my Christian ethic, morality, being a follower of the Christ that laid down His life for me as well as them.
Father, please forgive them, for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34.
I’m not conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of my mind on Christ. Romans 12:2.
2 Chronicles 7:14 , if my proof who are called by my name humble themselves, & pray & seek my face & turn from their wicked ways, then I’ll hear from heaven & will forgive their sin & heal their land.
Like
Comment
S.c. Rogers
The question is no longer if someone won’t bully someone that does homosexual things nor if Christians and or their friends will stand up for them bc they will.
The question Now is will They stand up for their Christian friends and those that speak out on behalf on (traditional) marriage, morality, and the right to free association?
Which will now garner one bullying & marginalization: plastering your social media with rainbows & hashtags promoting the Q community stuff Or standing up for (traditional) marriage, morality, and the right to free association?
Which is courageous?