(On Obama's support of gay marriage)
The New York Times, declaring that homosexuals' right to marry is "too precious and too fragile to be left up to the whim of states and the tearing winds of modern partisan politics," is looking to the court as the last, best hope to impose same-sex marriage on the nation.
Can't trust voters, can't trust elected legislators, can't trust Congress. Homosexual marriage, says the Times, is too important to be left to democratic decision. The republic must be commanded to accept it by unelected judges who serve for life and against whom the people have no political recourse.
That process of judicial tyranny has begun. A California judge has overturned the decision of California's voters to ban gay marriage, and his ruling is headed for the high court.
The Supreme Court thus will tell us whether this issue is to be decided democratically by voters and their elected state and federal legislators, or dictatorially by themselves.
Four liberal activists on the Supreme Court -- Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor -- are probably ready to declare that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, as their predecessors declared abortion to be a constitutional right.
But Obama needs one more justice. If elected, he will get it, and same-sex marriage will be forced on all of America. If Romney wins, the Supreme Court will likely leave the issue of same-sex marriage to be decided by the people and their elected representatives.
Thus everything is up for grabs this November: the House, the Senate, the presidency, the Supreme Court and whether we still call the United States of America God's country.
Pat Buchanan, Real Clear Politics 72 Comments
[5/29/2012 8:34:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 45
Submitted By: Dynamic Dragon
1 2 3
Game lost! Tough shit, Pat.
5/29/2012 8:39:33 AM
Since I refuse to believe that you're that ignorant of the way this country's government works, I can only conclude that you're lying for Jesus.
5/29/2012 8:41:03 AM
Those unelected judges are there for a reason and that is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. If the majority always got their way we'd still have segregation, interracial marriage would be illegal, and minorities wouldn't be able to vote. We need the Supreme Court so that we have a group of people that don't have to worry about getting elected and thus don't need to pander to their base. They need to be able to make the right decision (however unpopular), not a politically motivated decision.
5/29/2012 8:48:28 AM
Yet you people will applaud when the court backs you.
5/29/2012 8:55:22 AM
We never really called it god's country in the first place
5/29/2012 8:55:29 AM
Translation: Mob rule now, mob rule tomorrow, and mob rule forever!
5/29/2012 9:01:03 AM
Filin De Blanc
Did you complain when Bush became president via judicial fiat? No? Then you're a hypocrite who only wants the Supreme Court to have power when it decides in your favour.
5/29/2012 9:07:00 AM
Pat obviously is unaware that the Consitution of the United States was written to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Had it been left up to voters a lot of things would have taken forever to be set right, like segregation, women's suffrage, mixed race marriage, and sodomy laws.
The Constitution of the United States trumps state constitutions and voters. It is also oblivious to your god and his pretentious blowhard followers.
EDIT: Dyonisus beat me to it. Have to learn to read comments before posting. Damnit.
5/29/2012 9:21:41 AM
Can't trust voters, can't trust elected legislators, can't trust Congress. The courts have to ram civil rights down America throat, and now look at the result - a nigger in the white house.
5/29/2012 9:30:25 AM
Damn those courts, taking away your right to take away other people's rights.
5/29/2012 9:35:55 AM
The funny thing is, you could replace the words 'homosexual', 'gays' and 'same-sex marriage' with 'black', 'n***ers' and 'interracial marriage' and you could still attribute this quote to Pat Buchanan, because he's not just a homophobe but also a racist asshat.
5/29/2012 9:50:55 AM
That's right -we're going to force you to marry gays!
5/29/2012 9:59:41 AM
> The Supreme Court thus will tell us whether this issue is to be decided democratically by voters and their elected state and federal legislators, or dictatorially by themselves.
Admit it, Pat: you're the one who really wants to be the dictator.
5/29/2012 10:12:41 AM
But when Scalia and Thomas make corporations more powerful voters than people, that's not judicial activism, is it?
5/29/2012 10:21:03 AM
These people sure do spend a lot of time worrying about who people they don't know are fucking. Maybe you nitwits should get a hobby and stay out of the business of others. Oh that's right, you only believe in that as it applies to your rights.
5/29/2012 10:21:15 AM
Your argument would make sense... in 1996!
When over 51% of the population supports gay marriage according to the Gallup poll, it is not being forced against anyone except the 49% who simply won't change.
BTW, the court's liberals know not to be activist judges (can't say the same about the conservatives after Citizens United).
Also, I am getting REAL sick of the "God's country" crowd. Last time I checked, EVERY country is God's country, for this world is God's world.
5/29/2012 10:28:11 AM
Every state in the Union is bound by the U.S. Constitution. If the people in a state don't like that, then they should immediately file for secession from the Union.
The Supreme Court's primary job is to ensure that federal, state, and local laws are in accordance with the Constitution. That is not "judicial tyranny." That is the job given the Court when it was created.
5/29/2012 10:45:48 AM
Homosexual marriage, says the Times, is too important to be left to democratic decision.
The rights of citizens should never be left up to a vote. This is one instance where that adage about democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner is very fitting.
whether we still call the United States of America God's country.
Hopefully not. Then other countries will stop looking at us funny.
5/29/2012 10:51:36 AM
Hey remember the judicial tyranny when the judges decided that schools in Louisiana had to desegregate and allow black students to enroll despite the laws that were voted there on a popular vote?
5/29/2012 10:59:08 AM
Buchanan is being very deceptive here -- and because someone who's been involved with US government as long as he has has no excuse to be so ignorant -- most likely intentionally. One cannot espouse the virtues of the Constitution while simultaneously defaming its sole purpose: guiding legislation. The Supreme court can rule on the Constitutionality of laws which abridge the rights of homosexual marriage and that's how things have worked for quite some time, this is not news. There's more to the story that Buchanan omits in order to pitch his "judicial tyranny" tale of woe. The Supreme Court may evaluate laws in light of the Constitution, but the content of the Constitution is the domain of the Legislature. Given enough support, the Constitution can be amended; surely Pat has heard these amendments mentioned at least once, I bet he trots out some of the Bill of Rights as it suits him...
5/29/2012 12:06:55 PM
5/29/2012 12:17:18 PM
Human rights should not be voted on, dumbass!
5/29/2012 12:19:08 PM
States rights are always the shelter sought by those who want to oppress others but can't get the country as a whole to go along with it.
5/29/2012 12:34:06 PM
When the Supreme Court did its "judicial tyranny" thingy and decided via Florida that George Bush had won the presidential election even though Al Gore had won the popular vote, thus "overturning the decision of [nation's] voters", I didn't hear fatso Pat complaining much.
5/29/2012 12:59:02 PM
Tyranny of the Majority.
Look it up, dumbass.
5/29/2012 1:34:11 PM
1 2 3