Why Judge Reinhardt’s opinion on same sex marriage is dangerous to our Republic!
. .
One of the most important provisions in our Constitution is that judges and Justices are bound by the very words of our Constitution to support and defend “this Constitution”! The Court is not given the latitude when deciding upon the constitutionality of a law to base its opinion on its personal judgment call if the law in question furthers any “legitimate purpose” or promotes the values of the State. By contrast, there are a number of constitutions which do give the Court this very despotic authority, e.g., under Israel’s Basic Law: “Human Dignity and Liberty” we find a number of rights listed and secured. But then, under No.8, “Violation of rights” we find:
”There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”
This constitutionally authorized power in effect makes the previous rights listed in Israel’s Basic Law meaningless and subject to the mere discretion and fancies of the court. But that authority, one which intentionally allows Israel's judges to determine if a law promotes the values of the State of Israel and is enacted for a "proper purpose", is not a power granted to our judges and Justices, although they have despotically exercised such power over the years beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s and it is now used by the court to blatantly and with impunity decide what a law should be instead of the court deciding if a law is in harmony with the documented intentions under which our constitution’s, federal and state, were adopted. In effect, the power when exercised by the court today is both arbitrary and capricious and is openly used by the court to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution, while assuming an unaccountable and despotic legislative authority.
After studying the 9th Circuit Court opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, it becomes alarmingly clear that Judge Reinhardt never demonstrated from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment that it forbids a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. Judge Reinhardt simply asserted “defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” See page 44 of Reinhardt’s opinion. In fact, it is Judge Reinhardt who failed to demonstrate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is in harmony with his personal views and he assumed a despotic power to judge what a law should be.
But Judge Reinhardt is not clothed with authority by our Constitution to judge if a law passed by a State furthers any legitimate purpose. That authority is placed in the hands of the Legislature or law making body and includes our system’s amendment process in which the people may decide to make necessary changes to their constitution to accommodate changing times __ see Article V of the Constitution of the United States!
It is not obvious that Judge Reinhardt has ignored a fundamental principle stated by our Supreme Court which wrote:
”… we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”___ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
In fact, Judge Reinhardt failed, or intentionally avoided to substantiate his assertion that a state is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, to make distinctions based upon sex, or sexual orientation when issuing a marriage license. Instead, he took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare ”… defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
If this ruling is allowed to stand, our Constitution becomes a meaningless document, including the various provisions intended to restrict federal government actions, e.g., see the first ten amendments, which would then be subject to the courts arbitrary predilections, its views of fairness, reasonableness or justice, even when the Court is in direct conflict with the expressed intentions under which the people of the United States adopted a particular provision such as the 14th Amendment which was never, even remotely, intended to forbid state laws which make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license.
The bottom line is, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion is judicial tyranny at its worst and he ought to be immediately removed from the bench and severely punished to set an example for other judges and Justices who have, and intend to supplant their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as court ordered law while shredding the very document which the people adopted to protect themselves from judicial tyranny.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
. .
One of the most important provisions in our Constitution is that judges and Justices are bound by the very words of our Constitution to support and defend “this Constitution”! The Court is not given the latitude when deciding upon the constitutionality of a law to base its opinion on its personal judgment call if the law in question furthers any “legitimate purpose” or promotes the values of the State. By contrast, there are a number of constitutions which do give the Court this very despotic authority, e.g., under Israel’s Basic Law: “Human Dignity and Liberty” we find a number of rights listed and secured. But then, under No.8, “Violation of rights” we find:
”There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”
This constitutionally authorized power in effect makes the previous rights listed in Israel’s Basic Law meaningless and subject to the mere discretion and fancies of the court. But that authority, one which intentionally allows Israel's judges to determine if a law promotes the values of the State of Israel and is enacted for a "proper purpose", is not a power granted to our judges and Justices, although they have despotically exercised such power over the years beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s and it is now used by the court to blatantly and with impunity decide what a law should be instead of the court deciding if a law is in harmony with the documented intentions under which our constitution’s, federal and state, were adopted. In effect, the power when exercised by the court today is both arbitrary and capricious and is openly used by the court to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution, while assuming an unaccountable and despotic legislative authority.
After studying the 9th Circuit Court opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, it becomes alarmingly clear that Judge Reinhardt never demonstrated from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment that it forbids a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. Judge Reinhardt simply asserted “defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” See page 44 of Reinhardt’s opinion. In fact, it is Judge Reinhardt who failed to demonstrate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is in harmony with his personal views and he assumed a despotic power to judge what a law should be.
But Judge Reinhardt is not clothed with authority by our Constitution to judge if a law passed by a State furthers any legitimate purpose. That authority is placed in the hands of the Legislature or law making body and includes our system’s amendment process in which the people may decide to make necessary changes to their constitution to accommodate changing times __ see Article V of the Constitution of the United States!
It is not obvious that Judge Reinhardt has ignored a fundamental principle stated by our Supreme Court which wrote:
”… we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”___ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)
In fact, Judge Reinhardt failed, or intentionally avoided to substantiate his assertion that a state is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, to make distinctions based upon sex, or sexual orientation when issuing a marriage license. Instead, he took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare ”… defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
If this ruling is allowed to stand, our Constitution becomes a meaningless document, including the various provisions intended to restrict federal government actions, e.g., see the first ten amendments, which would then be subject to the courts arbitrary predilections, its views of fairness, reasonableness or justice, even when the Court is in direct conflict with the expressed intentions under which the people of the United States adopted a particular provision such as the 14th Amendment which was never, even remotely, intended to forbid state laws which make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license.
The bottom line is, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion is judicial tyranny at its worst and he ought to be immediately removed from the bench and severely punished to set an example for other judges and Justices who have, and intend to supplant their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as court ordered law while shredding the very document which the people adopted to protect themselves from judicial tyranny.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Last edited:
