Obergefell Vs Hodges: The Work Must Start Now.

Like many non-US citizen, I was shocked at the immense power the U.S. constitution vests into nine men, who are even elected for life.

It turns out this is not entirely so, and a system of checks and balances is in place for this, too.

The American Thinker reports that the U.S. Congress can strip – except in particular cases, which do not include Obergefell vs Hodges – both the Supreme Court and the lower courts of jurisdiction concerning certain issues. It makes sense: the elected representatives must have the right to keep the perverted judge out of the sodomy cookie jar, and uphold reality and common sense when said perverts forget it. In this case, the scathing condemnation of Obergefell vs Hodges by all four dissenting judges makes things, actually, easier or at least less difficult.

Of course, B Hussein O could pose the veto on such a law. But that would, exactly, set the ground for epic battles both in 2016 and beyond, and give every Christian the opportunity – victory of defeat at the ballot box – to do his duty.

There is no sign that this is going to happen. This shows, once again, the intrinsic defeat of voting RINO Congressmen. They will side with the enemy whenever they can get away with it, safe in the knowledge you will keep voting them to avoid… worse. Which worse eventually comes anyway.

I have always refused this reasoning as a voter, and suggest to my readers to do the same. RINO means a marginally slower death of Christianity, and that's all. RINO means a lot of excuses to avoid doing what one has the sacred duty to do. RINO means caring – and not even so much – only for your wallet, if you forget all social issues, which they will use to avoid having too many enemies or having to take an uncomfortable, risky, principled stance.

The SCOTUS system is, if you ask me, absurd, and I do not know any European Country with lifelong supreme judges (apart from the Pope, of course). Still, the antidote to the perverted US judges is there, if the American voters only grab it.

This is not a one-year battle. It's a thirty year battle. But the battle must start now. If the battle does not start and the issue is seen as “settled for now at least”, this perverted mentality will soon become mainstream, and then the working of reshaping hearts and minds will be more difficult.

The work must start now. Marriage as marriage has been upheld by voters in more than 30 U.S. states only a handful of years ago. There is work to be done, of course. But this exactly why the work must start now. The overturning of Obergefell vs Hodges through democratic means is the safest course to see this atrocious course reversed, even by legislative activity of by creating a political climate (president and senate) encouraging the appointment of sound judges when these five minions of satan go to their reward, or more probably punishment.

The work must start now.



Posted on July 3, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. The situation here, Mundabor, is rather bleak and not hopeful at all.

    Even if the Supreme Court decision could be reversed, which is an effective impossibility for the foreseeable future, all that would do is return the issue to the state governments, for 50 intramural battles. Some states, assuredly would return to a traditional marriage law. Others, certainly would not. The nation would be wracked by grave division, and there would be strong temptation and pressure on the conservative side to leave things be, for the sake of some semblance of social unity.

    Please excuse a brief lapse into possible contrary thinking, but we will not be able to overlook the point that has been made by some, such as, I believe, Catholic canonist Ed Peters. Namely, that in the US, we already had a significant pool of legally recognized marriages that are not true marriages in the eyes of Catholicism: whenever any married Christian [not just Catholics] divorces and remarries without a Catholic annulment. The homosexual ruling simply adds to an already-existing set of such marriages. This will be a further argument to leave the matter alone, as we are not planning to do battle against all legal marriages not recognized by Catholicism.

    • I did not like peters’ argument one bit. in my eyes, the issue withO vs H is that we Christians have officially become haters against the “human rights” of other people. In comparison to this, that there were invalid marriages before sinks into insignificance.
      As to the way to reverse the decision, one step at a time. The same goes for abortion, of course.

  2. Most judges in Common Law jurisdictions remain in office until retirement (75 years, generally). The judiciary is intended to be independent of the parliament and executive – three equal branches of government. However, in the USA, the judiciary does not have as much independence as in other Common Law jurisdictions.

    The only way judges leave office is death, resignation, reaching 75 years, or for incompetence or breaching his duty of office (to uphold Constiution, etc.) There are normally procedures for finding a judge incompetent or in contravention of the duties of his office.

    In Common Law jurisdictions, the three branches of government are meant to balance each other and prevent abuses of power – the Parlament makes laws, within the framework of a written or non-written Constitution and the Natural Law principles which (used to) underpin same; the Executive administers the laws; and the Judiciary interprets the law in a particular case, providing precedent where applicable.
    In the Oberfegell case, the judges who joined in the majority opinion, clearly went outside of their powers and invented law. They ought to be impeached for contravening the duties of their office. As for the judgment itself, it is null and void for being on it’s face irrational and in contravention of the law.

    • The same system of check and balances is in place in all European systems. What I find atrocious is the power given to these peopl eby the possibility of staying in their office for so long.
      heaven, how young is friggin’ Kagan?

  3. Six Catholics on the Supreme Court. 5-4 decision. Enough said.

%d bloggers like this: