"What I think is not appropriate is to take that policy debate and put it in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. If they don't like the law, there's an easy vote and that's in November." (Yahoo News)In effect, Katyal says that the so-called right of Americans to have medical insurance is a matter best left to the voters, not a matter for the courts at all, let alone the Supreme Court. (He ignored, of course, the fact that a majority of voters did not want Congress to pass the health care bill.)
He also said that if the Supreme Court accepted a challenge to Obamacare, there would be "grave" and "profound"consequences "because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people."
Now, take a look at Attorney General Eric Holder's statement about the Defense of Marriage Act. This law was passed by the US Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It basically states that the US government defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Holder, refusing to defend the law as he is required to do said:
"The Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional."(CBS News)In other words, Holder and Obama both feel that DOMA is unconstitutional, so they have decided to ignore both the authority of the people of the United States, the Congress, and the federal courts in deciding what the law is.
Here's a view on how the law should be viewed from activist and wannabe MSNBC host Al Sharpton:
"No, but you have tyranny by the majority. You cannot have rights voted on. If you, if you do not, the role of government is to protect people. And if, if you had civil rights voted on, I'd be sitting in the back of the bus and with a bad eye driver you'd be sitting next to me. So don't think about voting for rights."(Newsbusters)(Apparently, someone forgot to inform Sharpton that the civil rights outlined in the amendments to the Constitution, as well as the the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were voted on.)
Sharpton said these words to denigrate California's Proposition 8, which California's citizens passed in order to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The District and Circuit courts overturned the rights of voters in California to change their own constitution based on the idea that all those who voted in favor of the amendment had nothing more in mind than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." (Yahoo)
Yep, it was, as the Solicitor General put it, "a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people."
And so we come full circle in the never-ending liberal cycle of untenable argument. From the former Solicitor General, we learn that we cannot allow the Supreme Court to rule on the right of Americans just because we don't like the law. It is the duty of the people to change the law.
From Holder and Obama, we learn that the president has the authority to refuse to defend law if he doesn't like it, despite his oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It's not the duty of the people at all.
From Al Sharpton, we learn that we cannot vote on any law that liberals define as a right. The people cannot be trusted with such a task.
From the District and Circuit courts we learn that voting does not matter as long as the court can invent a new right out of thin air.
And leftists think that the poor state of the country and government is the fault of conservatism?
0 comments:
Post a Comment