Yesterday I watched Eric Holder say we must be suspicious of the state laws which inveigh against same sex marriage since in HIS PERSONAL OPINION these were laws which discriminated, and prevented equal opportunity. He made this argument at a national gathering of states attorneys general.
I immediately wondered about men such as Robert Jackson. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, was also a prosecutor at Nuremberg. He was also FDR attorney general, and as such he decided to do precisely what Mr. Holder is doing and failed to uphold the law, and see it enforced.
Equal protection.
The result was what FDR wanted.
Japanese internment camps.
“If I were attorney general in Kansas in 1953, I would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities,” Holder said in an interview with The New York Times.
Of course the PROCESS of the rule of law, is precisely what overturned Plessy v Ferguson the very next year.
We either have the rule of law or we do not. We have a process by which what is WRONG is fixed.
Sooner or later as the idea of the rule of law itself is discriminated against for what may be GOOD (though impatient) reason, we will face the moment when the rule of man, for man’s selfish purpose is presumed to be at that instant, BETTER.
An emergency, you see. When there is no time. Just for a short while, you see.
And now it will be - AGAIN.
It is THAT which Mr. Holder is arguing for. It is that which Mr. Obama has not restrained him from.
I believe adults should be able to join with another adult for life. I don’t care what we call it. But if preventing that is an injustice, then it should be overturned certainly by at least our courts with judges appointed and approved by elected officials, or better still, AT THE BALLOT BOX, by direct opinion of the people.
To argue that laws should ignored by the impulse of MAN as a good is not a good.
Make the act legal.
Brown beat the hell out of the Board of Education of Topeka, and righted a great wrong. Same sex marriage deserves the same kind of victory either at SCOTUS, or state by state.
Or if the people of various states decide not, maybe not in those states. And that would be for SCOTUS, not the impulse of those elected or appointed to uphold a legislated law (not just some executive policy which was self extended).
Mr Holder is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong.
FDR- commie hack who pulled the wool over everyone's eyes--
ReplyDeleteand he is still 'honored' as a great President--
bho- the same as above--
Am I 'bad'! for stating the above! rhetorical question- no need to answer-
C-CS
Holder raises an fundamental issue: is the Constitution, to which high officials take an oath to respect, one where the meaning of the words in the text is plain for everyone to read and follow, or is the meaning what the present officials in the judicial branch tell us what it means? Recall that in a different venue, this same AG would inform his employees that he considers members of Oath Keepers to hold extremist views about the Constitution. So what does Holder instruct his officials regarding Heller or other Court decisions that he clearly disagrees with? By his actions he is trying to circumvent the law. What would Holder say about Dred Scott where the Court held that runaway slaves were not persons but were property? Holder doesn't mention that an official can just resign rather than violate an oath to uphold a law he finds odious.
ReplyDeleteMy personal position is that the Oath is to the text of the Constitution and not to the Supreme Court. In being faithful to that Oath, I am willing to be informed by the Supreme Court, but not controlled by the Supreme Court.
-- theBuckWheat
Yes. Sometimes the law is an ass (Dickens I think) but it is all that is between us and chaos of every sort, AND we have processes to correct.
ReplyDeleteUnless of course Mr Holder thinks as citizens we EACH have the equality before the law HE DOES and we can ignore or enforce what seems reasonable or compulsory. Now with an armed citizenry, I think MAYBE certain consequences play out
It is only since about 1700 that the state has been regulating marriage and the only reason for that was to prevent the exploitation of women and their children. God and the church had nothing to do with it, the church had their own rules about it which very often contradicted the view of the state.
ReplyDelete