In American history where there is a battle between the status quo and more progressive ideas, the progressive ideas always win out. It has happened again.

My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: "Jesus wept."

And so did I, Mike.

This is classic.

Mike Huckabee tweeted this:

This is classic.

Mike Huckabee tweeted this:



Gay activist Dan Savage replied:

"Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the ruling.

So how about that quote? Isn't it a hint that if a case were to be heard based on equal protection clause that gay marriage would be recognized as constitutional?

And yet they turn right around and snub the will of the people in California with their Prop 8 non-decision. Which, in turn, was originally snubbed by a gay judge. Conflict of interest, anyone?

LOL a majority of the supreme court is "rogue." These people will say anything.

No, put as some will point out- they are not voted in by the people. Like you said before...about replacing some others with ones that feel the same was you do to get the rulings that you want.

Confrimation by a select few, with deals and everything else done behind closed doors make the system even more upstetting by many.

and this passed by one vote, so as always one vote could have turned it either way. But no matter which way it went half the people would be upset.

Lets watch and see how they untangle all this mess now. On all levels and combos that interwind.

The appointment of Supreme Court justices by the executive branch with confirmation by the legislative branch is part of the checks and balances designed to secure separation of powers. Moreover, the Framers recognized that an independent judiciary is necessary to safeguard constitutional rights, which would be opposed by the political majority.

The system is not the "behind closed doors," secretive process you imply. The decision is the result of federal litigation with testimony, a district court ruling and published opinion, followed by a Notice of Appeal that identifies basis for appeal, briefs submitted to the Circuit Court, an appellate decision, citing precedent, fact and Constitutional provisions, a petition to allow an appeal to SCOTUS with briefs a decision granting allowance of appeal, oral argument of the parties before the Court and a final published and read decision with dissent, all of which are done in the public. It doesn't get any more open than that.

If you want an elected Supreme Court, you deal with justiceswho receive large sums of money from nonprofits, who don't disclose their donors, and PACs.

As far as the 5-4 decision, keep in mind that the Heller case, which in 2008 found an individual right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment for the first time in American history, was a 5-4 decision. It's disengenuous to condemn the process only when it yields results, with which you don't agree.

And keep in mind that the DOMA decision is limited in scope. The federal government must recognize the valid marriages of its states. It does not make a broad, sweeping proclamation making gay marriage the law of the land.

Here in Texas, the election of all judges except municipal judges is lamented because of just what you point out: their vulnerability to fianancial enticement by campaign donors and the influence upon their opinions by those donors. In fact, in the textbook I use for class it has a section that asks Is Justice for Sale in Texas?

What is all this belly-aching about the Supremes being appointed and meeting in secret? This is the origiinal intent by the founding fathers. I thought conservatives loved original intent. I thought they believe it was handed to the founders on tablets by Jesus Himself

Now their ox is gored by a progressive decision on gay rights and they have their collective panties in a wad?