Thomas Jefferson Defends Religious Baker Before U.S. Supreme Court

Posted: 7/4/2017

On this patriotic day of the Declaration of Independence over 240 years ago, I want to introduce Thomas Jefferson as the Solicitor General.

Thomas Jefferson feels humbled to defend before the U.S. Supreme Court the baker from Denver, Co. (i.e. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop), who declined to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple based on religious objections.

Thomas Jefferson would probably argue along these lines (emphasis added):

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786)

The mass media and other usual suspects are celebrating these two young men who sued the baker as heroes! These two, ignorant and arrogant young men are everything but heroes! They are trying to ruin a small business for their mistaken hubris and their pretentious craving for fame!

County Judge Atherton Is A Genius

Posted: 9/5/2015

Trigger

Just read Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage (Source 1)

I immediately was delighted when I read this article about this courageous county judge in Tennessee, i.e. Jeffrey M. Atherton of Hamilton county!

Here is another article, with even more excerpts from Atherton’s decision Chattanooga Judge Dismisses Divorce Complaint, Citing U.S. Supreme Court Ruling On Gay Marriage; Atherton Hits "Judi-idiocracy" With Its "Iron Fist and Limp Wrist" (Source 2)

Quotes From The Articles

Here are some quotes from the articles (emphasis added):

1. “Last week, a Tenn. judge refused to grant a straight couple a divorce because the U.S. Supreme Court allowed gay marriage.” (1)
2. ““The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee's judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”” (1)
3. ““The majority’ s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as ‘a naked judicial claim to legislative— indeed, super-legislative— power,'” Atherton continued.
   The Supreme Court’s decision was “troubling” because it amounted to a “judicial fiat,” Atherton argued. “” (1)
4. ““To say the least, Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18,” which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, “having been adopted by the people of the State of Tennessee in 2006 as reflecting the will, desire, public policy and law of this State, and to be applied by its judiciary, seems a bit on the incompatible side with the U.S. Supreme Court’ s ruling,” he opined. “One would think that if the U.S. Supreme Court intended to overturn all or part of a state’ s constitution, it would do so expressly, rather than by implication.”” (1)
5. “"The conclusion reached by this court is that Tennesseans, corporately, have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces. Consequently, since only our federal courts are wise enough to address the issues of marriage - and therefore contested divorces - it only follows that this court's jurisdiction has been preempted.” (2)

Leading By Example

This is a beautiful case of civil disobedience!

Kudos to judge Atherton! We hope other judges will follow his example!

Another Unconstitutional Decision By The Supreme Court

Posted: 6/25/2015

Trigger

Yesterday the infamous decision on Obamacare, today another infamous decision on gay marriage (Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al.).

The events are happening so fast that I did not have any time to read more about it.

I hope to amend this blog post as soon as I have read more about it.

Deeply Unconstitutional

The Supremes usurped again the power to define the law of the land for all Americans what should have left to each state to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court today went roughshod over state referenda and state constitutional amendments like the one in South Dakota.

This ruling today has all the qualities to become as controversial as Roe v. Wade!

What is celebrated today by NPR and many homosexuals etc. could very well turn out to become a big bone of contention in the years ahead.

Confusing Marriage With Slavery?

The U.S. Supreme Court, to my mistaken knowledge, never outlawed slavery even though it should have done so. Thus, a complete failure of Scotus on this issue. Not only that the Scotus issued several horrible or infamous decisions regarding slaves or former slaves (e.g. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) or equal but separate in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)).

Unlike slavery, marriage is a very personal decision!

One-Two-Punch Foul Compromise Among Supremes

Is this pure coincidence that these two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court were released just one day apart? I sense here that the Supremes were having a struggle here and, unfortunately, something terribly awful came out of it!

This could be another hint that the Chief Justice John Roberts is totally unprincipled, incompetent and inept!

Privatize Marriage!

It is high time to privatize marriage! I intend to blog about this subject in more detail as soon as possible. Government or courts at all levels of government should only legitimately get involved in these personal decisions when there is a dispute of some sorts or when children are involved.