From his column at the National Review.
This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths. Yesterday, the justices rewrote Obamacare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government. Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple. Both were lawless.
As Justice Scalia put it regarding Obamacare, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ . . . We should start calling this law SCOTUSCare.” And as he observed regarding marriage, “Today’s decree says that . . . the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing. That is unacceptable. On the substantive front, I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage. And the 2016 election has now been transformed into a referendum on Obamacare; in 2017, I believe, a Republican president will sign legislation finally repealing that disastrous law.
……Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy. This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great
……The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”
But the Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “not even a scarecrow” to the justices. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all. A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.
……Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings.
The homosexual marriage decision was not based on the Constitution, but rather how the liberal justices felt about it.
IAW the Constitution, Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court interprets the law. There has been no law passed by Congress legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Therefore, it’s a states rights’ issue….
What 5 robed judges did was make an unconstitutional law. So what happens if a state decides to stand up for its rights and continue its ban on homosexual marriage by interpreting the ruling as “they’re allowed to, but there’s no law passed by Congress that can force us to concur.” Remember, this ruling does not reflect any law passed by Congress.
The same thing happened with the ruling on the ObamaCare subsidies.
Congress doesn’t always stick with the Constitution, either. The Dems pushed through an oppressive, unconstitutional law, the SCOTUS ruled against the individual government mandate but upheld it as a tax. Which essentially left the unconstitutional law in place.
With this latest travesty, the taxpayer will be fleeced even more. The impact on the taxpayer and the national debt: 18 new taxes and penalties and an additional $1.8 trillion over the next decade added to the national debt.
The SCOTUS figures that subsidies which accompany a law, albeit unconstitutional, which was amended and changed at the whim of a wannabe Emperor, should be upheld because otherwise “state exchanges would drown in a “death spiral.” And without the subsidies to go with ObamaCare, John Roberts wrote, “it is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner.”
The DemProg majority that held power in 2010 meant it to operate this way; certainly not the GOP opponents nor the American people who are vehemently against it. The SCOTUS has slapped the face of the people.
The liberal malfeasants on the SCOTUS violated the rights of the people to debate, decide, and govern.
Time to drain the swamp.