This Court hearing on DOMA, United States vs Windsor, was not any sort of legitimate hearing of fact, with judgment based on the Constitution,  but rather a contrived horse-and-pony show to allow the Court to issue court dictate falsely elevating gay marriage, with this show being arranged by the DOJ and certain members of the Court.  The case should never have made it to the Supreme Court, and ended two courts below the Supreme Court.  The there was literally NO ISSUE between the litigants for the Court to resolve making it impossible for the court to hear the case; the Court had no jurisdiction.

   
• Scalia (p 5): " "What the petitioner United States asks us to do in this case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not provide relief from the judgment below but to say that the judgment was correct. And the same was true of the Court of Appeals. 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. Since both parties agreed with the judgement of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 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.
  
  We have never before agreed to speak-to "say what the law is" - where there is no controversy efore us. In more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question's answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument."

The fact is there was no law to support this case, and no jurisdiction to even hear the case.

What happened is the United States, through the Obama Administration, agreed to bring the case to a higher court, and yet another, to make it to the Supreme Court, via corrupt procedure, with the United States not at all representing the Congress, nor the standing law DOMA that had been in effect since 1996, as is proper procedure and duty.

The petitioner and the appellant were operating in collusion in order to advance a Social Engineering agenda by Supreme Court fiat that was in no way supported by Constitutional Law, precedent, or court procedure, and the Supreme Court had no legitimacy in hearing it!

In this Case, the Petitioner, the United States, was the DOJ and solicitor General,  in other words Obama, and since the case had already been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties,  two courts below the Supreme Court, this case never should have gotten near SCOTUS.

Undeniably, Obama and his fellow criminals were working with at least four Justices in the Court, to leverave them to hear it, for them to make a ruling where there was no issue to resolve, and to resolve that DOMA was unconstitutional, when it could not possibly be so,  so that they might dictate to the entirety of society.

Why Can't Doma be unconstitiutional? Because it was the Federal government only defiuning the law that was applicable only to the Federfal government. No one ele has authority over that, and gays unions being recognized to be the same as heterosexual marriage, and receive fedeal benefits, is nowhere a "right

Scalia (p. 36-37)

   
• Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today's opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority's vision of our role. 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." Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders--Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we "undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
  
  That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere "primary" in its role.
  
  This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of "primary" power, and so created branches of government that would be "perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission," none of which branches could "pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers." The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today's majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of "greater intrinsic value" or "stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty" than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No. 47, at 301.
  
  For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today's opinion asserts) " 'an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.' "Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The "judicial Power" is not, as the majority believes, the power " 'to say what the law is,' " ibid., giving the Supreme Court the "primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws." The majority must have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit. See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons.

Not only do we have a case of judicial supremacy, and supremacy over the Congress, but being able to exert this illegitimate supremacy as a result of the collusion of the Executive, entirely overriding Congress, and the people. What we're witnessing is an overthrow of the Constitution and disregard of its terms, by a "black-robed supremacy.

Below is the summary of this case, 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

I've highlighted the portions in maroon that are "a problem".

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 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 issue a judicial edict invalidating legitimate Congressional Federal Law only applicable to Federal process, when that Court has no reason to hear the case due to the fact that "there is no controversy before us [the Court]."

Scalia nails the overall issue involved being the fact that the Supreme Court should not have heard the case due to overall issue 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 actions with regard to process and statute.   Nowhere among any of the rights, is there any assurance of outcome, recognition and reward  for actions, particilarly 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 rights 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 the real meaning 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 pointed out by Scalia,  the US v Windsor never should have gotten Certiorari 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!


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 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 Constitution and its own authority in the process,  particularly given it has no authority render judgement 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 beteen the DOJ, the plaintiff, and even members of the Court, all done by a means to subvert the legitimate rule of law, and corrupt the Constitution, as to engage in what they believe was a superior social engineering dictate.

Not only should every American be extremely pissed.. but they should be very afraid for our future as a Republic, government by the Rule of Law, rather than the Rule of Men.

 The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, BLAG did not originally have standing in the orignal two courts, either the District court or the court of appeals, and did not have standing to raise the case from those courts to the to the Supreme Court, and then did not have standing in front of the Court until it made the extremely unusual petition, that the Court could not hear the DOMA case and judge DOMA (saying nothing then about judging an actual conflict, which no longer existed), unless BLAG was given standing, and stating that the Court *ONLY* did not have jurisdiction to judge  the case if the DOJ was a party!   None of this is actually defending Congress' constitutonal authority under Separation of Powers to write laws specifically applicable to the federal government, which is what DOMA did.

BLAG's first response to the Supreme Court was at the Court's request, on January 22, 2013, in which BLAG argues the merits of DOMA, but nowhere indicates that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the Case as a result of  the case issues being resolved two courts below.  Meanwhile the DOJ had actual standing in the Court of Appeals, and was appealing a decision that it had already indicated that it agreed with, solely to move the case "forward" when there was no issue after the district court's ruling.   BLAG was only an interested party, however an interested party pretending to act by interests different those of the DOJ, when this was not the case.  This is shown by the second BLAG response to the Supreme Court, below.

BLAG's second response to SCOTUS on February 22, 2013 (PDF) involves BLAG's petition to the Court for standing, (for the first time!).  BLAG further indicates that if it is not recognized as having standing, then the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, as there would be no two opposing parties.  By this BLAG was clearly and openly providing the Court means to engage a ruling that never could have been legitimately heard.

Yet BLAG is entirely ignoring the overall issues of 1) that the case itself no longer had any unresolved issue as the federal government gave into tho ruling, so had no jurisdiction to be heard by the court of appeals, much less the Supreme Court and 2) that the Court does not have standing in order to overrule  the Congress enacting legislation solely applicable to  the federal government itself, due to Separation of Powers,  both of which showing that BLAG is not acting in the interest of the DOMA law, and the Congress that passed it.

From that February 22, 2013 filing:

   
• QUESTIONS PRESENTED
     
      This brief addresses the two jurisdictional
     questions that this Court has directed the litigants to
      address:
     
      1. Whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
      of the United States House of Representatives has
      Article III standing in this case.
     
      2. Whether the Executive Branch's agreement
      with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional
      deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case.

And also in Table of Contents:

   
• ARGUMENT .......................11
  
  
  A. The House Has Standing to Defend a Statute Against a Constitutional Challenge When the Executive Branch Refuses to Do So
  .............................
  B. Amica's Arguments That the House
  Lacks Standing Are Mistaken
     

Now why do you suppose those Amicus Curiae briefs referenced in 11B exist at all? They're obviously not from those wanting to have DOMA overruled, not from those who want the Court to hear the case and have standing to annul DOMA,  but rather are from those who want DOMA legitimately defended, and who recognize that BLAG is only acting as a corrupt hand of the DOJ and the Executive, with no one really defending DOMA at all! BLAG itself hints at this fact, by its own reference to the fact that the Court has no standing to rule on (against) DOMA without BLAG being recognized as having standing, and the fact that BLAG never challenged the fact the case shouldn't be before the Court anyway, nor that the Court had no standing to overrule Congress merely legislating on federal processes!

In that 11B argument counter to the Amica's arguments, BLAG indicates:

   
•   "And the House's lawmaking authority is a "distinct legislative prerogative."  Indeed, it is the House's core legislative prerogative under Article I."

   
Despite BLAG recognizing that "lawmaking authority" as being the "House's (and Congress' overall) core legislative prerogative",  to argue for BLAG's standing, nowhere does BLAG indicate that the House's lawmaking authority under Article I, when specifically applied only to Federal process,  entirely insulates the law  from Supreme Court influence under Separation of Powers, and thereby not subject to court jurisdiction! In fact nowhere is the issue of Separation of Powers addressed, even as recognized by Scalia! 

BLAG is NOT actually operating to defend DOMA, and by its own conflicted statement did NOT have standing through the appeals court and into the Supreme Court, and is not intending to have DOMA recognized as legitimate, but rather is only acting acting as a pseudo-litigant allegedly defending DOMA (in name only) while working to provide SCOTUS the false authority to rule against DOMA and establish precedent! 

BLAG, in fact, is acting as nothing but a Trojan horse, outwardly pretending benefice and disposition to defend DOMA, but actually openly providing the means, even by BLAG's very inclusion, by which DOMA might be illegitimately overthrown and illegitimately ruled unconstitutional...  and BLAG's own statements, and arguments, indicate this to be true.

This was nothing but a corrupt dog and pony show from the start, pretending legitimate processes and a real dispute, while intending to dictate the terms of society under the auspices of the Supreme Court, all arranged by the Executive, and facilitated by equally corrupt actions by the DOJ, BLAG, and SCOTUS itself.

We get it, it was a activist court, it's what libs do to destroy the country.

IMO....That's why we lost our Republic over this. We now entered into a democracy.

Short version:

Republic vs Democracy

Long version:

Why America is a Republic, not a Democracy

In my own opinion, it is far more than mere "activism"  for the Court to rule on a case where there was not only no conflict existing, thereby no jurisdiction,  but also the court itself had no legitimate authority to act, as DOMA only involved the Congress indicating the terms only applicable to government process, which is Congress's most fundamental authority, and protected under Separation of Powers.

And that seems to be what Scalia is railing against as well.

The Court is actually acting as a dictatorial body, a "black-robed supremacy" not just ruling on law, but dictating on law, and even doing so ostensibly to establish its own authority above the Executive branch.

Quote from: Trip on July 13, 2013, 11:45:29 AM
In my own opinion, it is far more than mere "activism"  for the Court to rule on a case where there was not only no conflict existing, thereby no jurisdiction,  but also the court itself had no legitimate authority to act, as DOMA only involved the Congress indicating the terms only applicable to government process, which is Congress's most fundamental authority, and protected under Separation of Powers.

And that seems to be what Scalia is railing against as well.

The Court is actually acting as a dictatorial body, a "black-robed supremacy" not just ruling on law, but dictating on law, and even doing so ostensibly to establish its own authority above the Executive branch.

That was kinda the point, we all knew it from day one it was an activist court decision, it's the only way the left make headway in this country, legislating from the bench. Scalia is always Right...
And with RINO in leadership positions, it's a guarantee they won't reverse the courts decision or flex their power guaranteed under the law, they're spineless wimps, which is why the Tea party is gaining even more momentum.

There is no Constitutional authority for the government to involve itself with, or somehow sanction and also define what a marriage is either.

In fact if the government had obeyed and had stayed within the limits placed upon it by our Constitution in the first place.

There wouldn't be an issue about gay marriage in the first place.

As a marriage would be the purely religious sacrament, it belongs as, and is.

Can anyone even imagine the precedent it would set if Congress actually overruled SCOTUS?

Quote from: daidalos on July 13, 2013, 12:38:52 PM
There is no Constitutional authority for the government to involve itself with, or somehow sanction and also define what a marriage is either.

In fact if the government had obeyed and had stayed within the limits placed upon it by our Constitution in the first place.

There wouldn't be an issue about gay marriage in the first place.

As a marriage would be the purely religious sacrament, it belongs as, and is.

There is actually no authority on the part of the states to alter the definition of marriage.  The 10th Amendment references the "powers" of the the states, and also concludes with ".. or to the people"  indicating no precedence of the state over the people.   

Romney in fact promoted a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment in his "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" defense of RomneyCare during the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary debates.   In his description of these "Fifty Flavors", Romney presented each citizen as having the "right" to flee  to another state wherein their rights MIGHT still be recognized, reducing once-free American citizens to being refugees in their own country.   This nation's founders would be distressed that their country founded on individual rights could be so perverted and not one other candidate on stage spoke up against this corruption. 

Nowhere did this nation's founders indicate that it was infinitely preferable for the states to deny our rights, rather than the federal government itself, but instead recognized our rights to be innate unto the individual and "unalienable" - unable to be taken, not even by the will of the individual possessing them.

Marriage is actually long predating even religion, being a function of the biological fact of man-woman reproduction, and society's interest in recognizing the value of a stable, committed union to the prolonged upbringing of offspring to adolescence, so that they might be productive members of society.    Only later was marriage  recognized as a sacrament by the church, and such biblical allusions made of devotion to the church being a "marriage".

The point is that not even the states have any original authority over Marriage, to redefine it,  only to codify marriage under state terms, just as Congress did under federal application.

Quote from: Trip on July 13, 2013, 04:25:09 PM
There is actually no authority on the part of the states to alter the definition of marriage.  The 10th Amendment references the "powers" of the the states, and also concludes with ".. or to the people"  indicating no precedence of the state over the people.   

Romney in fact promoted a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment in his "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" defense of RomneyCare during the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary debates.   In his description of these "Fifty Flavors", Romney presented each citizen as having the "right" to flee  to another state wherein their rights MIGHT still be recognized, reducing once-free American citizens to being refugees in their own country.   This nation's founders would be distressed that their country founded on individual rights could be so perverted and not one other candidate on stage spoke up against this corruption. 

Nowhere did this nation's founders indicate that it was infinitely preferable for the states to deny our rights, rather than the federal government itself, but instead recognized our rights to be innate unto the individual and "unalienable" - unable to be taken, not even by the will of the individual possessing them.

Marriage is actually long predating even religion, being a function of the biological fact of man-woman reproduction, and society's interest in recognizing the value of a stable, committed union to the prolonged upbringing of offspring to adolescence, so that they might be productive members of society.    Only later was marriage  recognized as a sacrament by the church, and such biblical allusions made of devotion to the church being a "marriage".

The point is that not even the states have any original authority over Marriage, to redefine it,  only to codify marriage under state terms, just as Congress did under federal application.

True, now show me the power, enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, for either state or Federal government to define what is and is not marriage.

Hint you wont find it. Because such a governmental power, only exists in the minds of activists.

Quote from: daidalos on July 14, 2013, 08:29:31 PM
True, now show me the power, enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, for either state or Federal government to define what is and is not marriage.

Hint you wont find it. Because such a governmental power, only exists in the minds of activists.

Exactly, that power does not exist.

But then the federal government did not deine marriage, but rather only recognized the definition that has been the consideration of societies since the dawn of mankind.

Janet Porter released a new video today in response to the recent Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality in which she spoke with Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Louie Gohmert about what the rulings mean.

Gohmert told Porter that if the Supreme Court majority really believes that the purpose of DOMA was to impose inequality then "they are the most ignorant people walking around in Washington, and that's saying something."

Either that, Gohmert added, or they lied, in which case America is doomed because "countries don't last very long after you reach the point where their highest level of government is being dishonest [and] we're there"

Gohmert on DOMA decision

Quote from: Trip on July 19, 2013, 06:57:30 AM
Janet Porter released a new video today in response to the recent Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality in which she spoke with Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Louie Gohmert about what the rulings mean.

Gohmert told Porter that if the Supreme Court majority really believes that the purpose of DOMA was to impose inequality then "they are the most ignorant people walking around in Washington, and that's saying something."

Either that, Gohmert added, or they lied, in which case America is doomed because "countries don't last very long after you reach the point where their highest level of government is being dishonest [and] we're there"

Gohmert on DOMA decision

Man, he was spot on!!!
We are on the verge of dissolving our societal contract, one where we actually function as a people, a society of one, we are being divided as planned by commies decades long ago, the planned breakdown of societal norms.
Divide and conquer, history proves it's easier to destroy civilization where half the population agrees with your end goals.

Quote from: Solar on July 19, 2013, 07:07:51 AM
Man, he was spot on!!!
We are on the verge of dissolving our societal contract, one where we actually function as a people, a society of one, we are being divided as planned by commies decades long ago, the planned breakdown of societal norms.
Divide and conquer, history proves it's easier to destroy civilization where half the population agrees with your end goals.

So the question then becomes solar how do we combat this? The decline of our society has long been in the works.

This issue of "marriage" is only one tiny small example of that decline.