The Supreme Court doesn’t always get it right, as recognized by constitutional scholars worth their salt. Consider the Dred Scott decision, in which the court perverted the Constitution to promote slavery.
Other notable examples include Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the court sanctioned segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of separate but equal. In Korematsu v. United States the court gave license to the U.S. Army’s internment of Japanese Americans without due process, and in Roe v. Wade, the court legalized abortion throughout the nation with no constitutional basis.
No court of man can arrogantly redefine what almighty God defined once and for all in Genesis as understood by people of faith and right reason for millennia.
That Justice Anthony Kennedy led the charge of this madness, which is owed no obedience whatsoever on any level, should come as no surprise since this is the same man who, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, held that the autonomous unencumbered rights of the individual extend to the extreme that every man can define his own universe of rights with no thought whatsoever about the consequences of what happens when his universe collides with his neighbor’s in the absence of universally recognized moral absolutes. The answer is easily seen for anyone still capable of rational thought: “Anarchy is inevitable.”
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times
There is a difference between genuine rights claims rooted in a natural law foundation and those that aren’t. The former understands the difference between authentic freedom and license to promote the common good; the latter doesn’t.
Gary L. Morella