Trip
Spectemur Agendo
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 425
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The facts demonstrate that the recent DOMA case, U.S. v Windsor, was nothing but a corrupt hose and pony show that SCOTUS did not have the jurisdiction to hear, and was resolved two courts below the Supreme Court. The fact that the Supreme Court was acting in disregard of the Constitution, and long passed its legitimate authority is was the motivation behind Justice Scalia's scathing dissent.
Case summary of United States vs Windsor, from wikipedia:
Above, I've highlighted the portions in maroon that are "a problem".
Analysis of Facts & Scalia's Opinion:
1) The biggest problem is that Holder agreed with the plaintiff, and gave her the taxes back with interest, thereby she was made whole, and the case should have ended at the U.S. District Court for the Southern New York. However later the DOJ joined to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But as we've been reminded repeatedly, Holder IS THE DOJ!
The DOJ was not actually appealing the decision, and was not defending DOMA, but rather was appealing the decision because a lower court had made what it viewed as the proper decision but too early, before the Supreme Court could rule on DOMA, and invalidate the law. As pointed out by Scalia, the previous lower court decisions would not have created any precedent regarding DOMA:
In point of fact, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, is the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Thus, the only reason the case was being heard by the Supreme Court was to establish precedent, and issue a judicial edict invalidating legitimate Congressional Federal Law only applicable to Federal process, when that Court has no legitimate authority to hear the case due to the fact that "there is no controversy before us [the Court]" (Scalia).
Scalia nails the overall issue involved being one of Separation of Powers, citing Madison in Federalist #49, who indicates that none of the branches of government "... can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers".
This case was not heard by the Court because of any sort of "due process" civil rights violation by DOMA and Congress, as there was no such violation. Quite obviously the Federal government has the exclusive and legitimate authority to legislate the Federal government's own process. Nowhere among any of the rights, is there any assurance of outcome in the form of recognition and reward for actions, particularly not when those actions are done by entirely different terms than have been recognized by societies over mankind's entire history, for good reason. Such a dictate of recognition and reward is not about rights at all, but rather dictation of the terms of society by government, something the founders deliberately sought to prohibit.
This case was actually about a few government elitist fascists dictating the terms of society, Social Engineering, in disregard of the Constitution, legal process, and willingness to corrupt even the real significance of rights themselves, in gross violation of their own constitutional authority.
2) The other party in the suit was the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives , comprised of five members of the House leadership: the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips it directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel. Given that there is equal input from minority leaders and minority whips (The Democrats) it is uncertain whose interest BLAG was actually representing, but one thing is certain, BLAG itself did not have any real standing on its own, and the DOJ, teamed with BLAG, was not representing any sort of real support for DOMA.
3) As indicated by Scalia, the US v Windsor never should have gotten Certiorari (Cert) because, "Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction." Quite literally there was no "beef" for the court to resolve, and therefore no remedy the Court could provide, so the Court should not have granted Cert and heard the case.
The contention over even considering and hearing the case is borne out by looking at the SCOTUS Blog entries. Not only was the original en banc Cert hearing deadline not met and extended, but also the Windsor case was "Distributed for conference", not once, as is the custom, but distributed for conference THREE TIMES: Oct 29 2012, Nov 13 2012, and Dec 3 2012! I'm no attorney, but I've never seen anything like this before.
Quite obviously some group among the Justices was refusing to take "no" for an answer as to granting Cert and hearing the case, and this also is indicated by Scalia in his description of the majority's rationale to hear the case. In his minority opinion, Scalia references the "majority vision", with great sarcasm, of the Supreme Court's role, indicating, "The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our "primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law" (at least one that "has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ") would "become only secondary to the President's." Nowhere in the history of the Court's reasoning has it every involved a motivation to merely supersede the President so as to be on record (which is really not the ,majority's motivation at all), particularly not when there is no "inflicted real injury on a plaintiff", which Scalia indicated parenthetically, with obvious strong bitterness.
What we're witnessing is not just the court grossly altering court process in order to hear and rule on the case, but the court itself actually fabricating and dictating law, and grossly distorting the terms of the Constitution and its own authority in the process, particularly given it has no authority render judgment at all. And this Scalia indicates too, with his reference to "black-robed supremacy", which believes its authority is 'to say what the law is,' which is not the legitimate authority of the Court at all.
The actual fact that there was any Supreme Court hearing of this case at all, which was nothing but a contrived horse and pony show, only came about because of collusion between the DOJ, the plaintiff, and undeniably certain members of the Court, all done by a means to subvert the legitimate rule of law, and corrupt the Constitution, so as to engage in what they believe was a superior social engineering dictate.
Not only should every American be angered by what transpired, regardless of their personal view on "gay marriage", but they should be very afraid for our future as a Republic, governed by the Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Men.
Case summary of United States vs Windsor, from wikipedia:
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a same-sex couple residing in New York, were lawfully married in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Spyer died in 2009, leaving her entire estate to Windsor. Because their marriage was recognized by the state of New York, Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so by Section 3 of DOMA, which provided that the term "spouse" only applies to a marriage between a man and woman. In effect, the Internal Revenue Service found that the exemption did not apply to same-sex marriages, denied Windsor's claim, and compelled her to pay $363,053 in estate taxes.
On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification."[1] On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff's position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) continued defense of the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012.
BLAG and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the Court issued a 5–4 decision which found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment".[2]:25
On November 9, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the federal government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Windsor sought a refund because DOMA singled out legally married same-sex couples for "differential treatment compared to other similarly situated couples without justification."[1] On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement from the Obama administration that agreed with the plaintiff's position that DOMA violated the U.S. Constitution and said he would no longer defend the law in court. On April 18, 2011, Paul Clement, representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) continued defense of the law. On June 6, 2012, Judge Barbara S. Jones ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and ordered the federal government to issue the tax refund, including interest. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on October 18, 2012.
BLAG and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in December 2012. On March 27, 2013, the court heard oral arguments. On June 26, 2013, the Court issued a 5–4 decision which found Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment".[2]:25
Above, I've highlighted the portions in maroon that are "a problem".
Analysis of Facts & Scalia's Opinion:
1) The biggest problem is that Holder agreed with the plaintiff, and gave her the taxes back with interest, thereby she was made whole, and the case should have ended at the U.S. District Court for the Southern New York. However later the DOJ joined to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But as we've been reminded repeatedly, Holder IS THE DOJ!
The DOJ was not actually appealing the decision, and was not defending DOMA, but rather was appealing the decision because a lower court had made what it viewed as the proper decision but too early, before the Supreme Court could rule on DOMA, and invalidate the law. As pointed out by Scalia, the previous lower court decisions would not have created any precedent regarding DOMA:
" ...the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings should have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to elevate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States."
In point of fact, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, is the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Thus, the only reason the case was being heard by the Supreme Court was to establish precedent, and issue a judicial edict invalidating legitimate Congressional Federal Law only applicable to Federal process, when that Court has no legitimate authority to hear the case due to the fact that "there is no controversy before us [the Court]" (Scalia).
Scalia nails the overall issue involved being one of Separation of Powers, citing Madison in Federalist #49, who indicates that none of the branches of government "... can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers".
This case was not heard by the Court because of any sort of "due process" civil rights violation by DOMA and Congress, as there was no such violation. Quite obviously the Federal government has the exclusive and legitimate authority to legislate the Federal government's own process. Nowhere among any of the rights, is there any assurance of outcome in the form of recognition and reward for actions, particularly not when those actions are done by entirely different terms than have been recognized by societies over mankind's entire history, for good reason. Such a dictate of recognition and reward is not about rights at all, but rather dictation of the terms of society by government, something the founders deliberately sought to prohibit.
This case was actually about a few government elitist fascists dictating the terms of society, Social Engineering, in disregard of the Constitution, legal process, and willingness to corrupt even the real significance of rights themselves, in gross violation of their own constitutional authority.
2) The other party in the suit was the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), which is a standing body of the U.S. House of Representatives , comprised of five members of the House leadership: the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders, the majority and minority whips it directs the activities of the House Office of General Counsel. Given that there is equal input from minority leaders and minority whips (The Democrats) it is uncertain whose interest BLAG was actually representing, but one thing is certain, BLAG itself did not have any real standing on its own, and the DOJ, teamed with BLAG, was not representing any sort of real support for DOMA.
3) As indicated by Scalia, the US v Windsor never should have gotten Certiorari (Cert) because, "Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction." Quite literally there was no "beef" for the court to resolve, and therefore no remedy the Court could provide, so the Court should not have granted Cert and heard the case.
The contention over even considering and hearing the case is borne out by looking at the SCOTUS Blog entries. Not only was the original en banc Cert hearing deadline not met and extended, but also the Windsor case was "Distributed for conference", not once, as is the custom, but distributed for conference THREE TIMES: Oct 29 2012, Nov 13 2012, and Dec 3 2012! I'm no attorney, but I've never seen anything like this before.
Quite obviously some group among the Justices was refusing to take "no" for an answer as to granting Cert and hearing the case, and this also is indicated by Scalia in his description of the majority's rationale to hear the case. In his minority opinion, Scalia references the "majority vision", with great sarcasm, of the Supreme Court's role, indicating, "The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our "primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law" (at least one that "has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ") would "become only secondary to the President's." Nowhere in the history of the Court's reasoning has it every involved a motivation to merely supersede the President so as to be on record (which is really not the ,majority's motivation at all), particularly not when there is no "inflicted real injury on a plaintiff", which Scalia indicated parenthetically, with obvious strong bitterness.
What we're witnessing is not just the court grossly altering court process in order to hear and rule on the case, but the court itself actually fabricating and dictating law, and grossly distorting the terms of the Constitution and its own authority in the process, particularly given it has no authority render judgment at all. And this Scalia indicates too, with his reference to "black-robed supremacy", which believes its authority is 'to say what the law is,' which is not the legitimate authority of the Court at all.
The actual fact that there was any Supreme Court hearing of this case at all, which was nothing but a contrived horse and pony show, only came about because of collusion between the DOJ, the plaintiff, and undeniably certain members of the Court, all done by a means to subvert the legitimate rule of law, and corrupt the Constitution, so as to engage in what they believe was a superior social engineering dictate.
Not only should every American be angered by what transpired, regardless of their personal view on "gay marriage", but they should be very afraid for our future as a Republic, governed by the Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Men.