Posts

Showing posts with the label Stephen Breyer

Antonin Scalia stood against activist judges promoting homosexual marriage

Image
English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As one of the four justices that dissented from today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex “marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a sharp rebuke of his colleagues’ arrogance, warning that “pride goeth before a fall.” “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote. “It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so.” Scalia was speaking of his disapproval of five black-robed justices issuing an edict that he opined was “highly unrepresentative” of the nation and “hardly a cross-section of America .” “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine

DOMA comes under fire at Supreme Court

Image
WASHINGTON, D.C. , March 27, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The legislative impact of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came under heavy fire during oral arguments before the Supreme Court today, with enough justices questioning its effect to signal it may be struck down on states' rights grounds. Meanwhile, the court's conservative wing wondered if the “new regime” had instituted a “new world” of jurisprudence, slamming what is regarded as the Obama administration's hypocritical stance on the law. “I'm certainly concerned when you have potentially five justices question the federal Defense of Marriage Act ,” Mat Staver of  Liberty Counsel  told  OneNewsNow.com . “If for some reason the court had five justices vote to strike down Proposition 8 or the federal Defense of Marriage Act under some concoction that it was prohibited by the Constitution, that would have catastrophic effect.” Such a decision, he warned, would put the court “on a direct collision cou