Obamacare stands. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the key “mandate” provision. The mandate is the funding engine of this sprawling piece of legislation. The public was never presented with a faithful account of what was in this bill. Rather, it was sold with smoke and mirrors. It was based on a con … More…
We’re faced with three possible outcomes as the Supreme Court weighs the Obamacare Mandate. The Court could uphold the mandate and Obamacare just as it is. The Court can strike down the entire Obamacare piece of legislation, all 2700 pages of it. Or they can strike down the mandate only, while retaining the rest of the legislation. It is this last possibility that is troubling … More…
The 4th President of the United States, James Madison, visits with Tom Quiner about the Supreme Court’s recent shocking decision. More…
By Tom Quiner
Judge Vaughn Walker says no. He’s the judge in California who struck down Proposition 8 which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The openly gay jurist said; “A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation.”
It’s not? Since when?
Why have we passed capital punishment laws? On the basis of morality.
Why do many, including me, oppose capital punishment? On the basis of morality.
Why did many fight for the passage of ObamaCare? Because they believe healthcare is a fundamental moral right.
Why did so many oppose ObamaCare? Because the inclusion of abortion is so repugnant to the moral sensibilities of the majority of Americans.
Why did 45 states make abortion illegal prior to Roe v Wade? On the basis of morality.
Why do liberals demand unfettered access to abortion? On the basis of women’s “reproductive health”, a moral issue in their eyes.
Why have we passed minimum wage laws? On the basis of morality.
Why is pedophilia illegal? Morality.
Why is torture illegal? Morality.
And the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is certainly not private. It has been the basis of public policy of every nation, of every civilization, of every religion, of every culture in recorded human history.
Are homosexual couples inferior to heterosexual ones? That’s not even the point of proposition 8. The point is all about definition. Society defined marriage accordingly to protect women and their children from commitment-wary men. It was in the best interests of society. Marriage was not defined on the basis of the “relationship” between the partners.
At the foundation of American government is morality. Judge Walker says that is no longer acceptable, unless it is his private morality, that is.
By Tom Quiner
How often have you heard liberals invoke the word “diversity?”
In the context of liberal-speak, diversity is automatically considered to be good. The University of Oregon says it this way:
The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences. These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.
I mention “diversity” in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, which I wrote about on June 29th (A Triumph for Political Correctness).
Duke law professor, John Inazu, had an interesting take on the Court’s decision. Although he agreed with me that it was the wrong decision, he disagreed as to why. He said the court should have supported the Christian Legal Society (CLS) in the name of diversity.
That’s exactly what an appellate court did 36 years ago in a similar case. It weighed whether a student group “so far beyond the pale of the wider community’s values” that “university facilities [should] not be used by the group to flaunt its credo.”
In the name of diversity, the court back then ruled that Gay Students Organization of the University of New Hampshire should enjoy the right of free association.
In the recent Supreme Court decision, a similar standard applied. The CLS embraced a philosophy far beyond the pale of the wider communities’ values, namely that sexual relations should be confined to a man and a woman within the confines of marriage. Such a radical notion!
Alas, diversity is only applicable if it applies to liberal groups.
Professor Inazu wisely opined:
Christian student groups ought to be able to exclude non-Christians. Groups that object to homosexual conduct ought to be able to exclude those who disagree. Groups of Democrats ought to be able to exclude Republicans. Groups of environmentalists ought to be able to exclude people who don’t care about the environment. That leaves us with diversity.
Over at Yale Law School, professor Stephen Carter put it this way:
Democracy needs diversity because democracy advances through dissent, difference and dialogue.
Professor Inazu leaves us with a dire warning:
Expression presupposes existence. And the court’s decision doesn’t silence CLS – it destroys it.