Thorner/ONeil: Restoring Judicial Balance is Essential for America’s future

September 26, 2015

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Thorner/ONeil: Restoring Judicial Balance is Essential for America’s future

Gavel-640x424

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

The erosion of our Religious Liberty through Judicial Supremacy is a major issue receiving increasing attention from a variety of sources.

Religious liberty can be described as an inherent, inalienable, and natural right of mankind. It furthermore includes the right to choose and practice one’s own faith and religious beliefs; freedom from government acts that deny or exclude the rightful and lawful expression and exercise of religious liberty in private or public life; and a guarantee of perfect toleration of religious sentiment.  It is unfortunate that a vocal anti-religious minority has chosen to attack religion and ban it from our public life.

Historically, religion in public places was common.  General Washington, with religious preachers, were the ones who lead Christian men into battle against the cold steel of the dreaded Redcoats.  Through those years, they courageously defended the cause of liberty, believing that the Bible addressed every subject, including politics. The population understood that it was the government’s responsibility to protect and defend those rights.  The brave, patriotic pastors who fought and died for freedom were known as the “Black Robed Regiment.”

How different it is today. Most church leaders to not believe it is their responsibility to address the issues their forefathers found most important.  They make excuses for their lack of speaking out against the progressive agenda that has dominated our political system for many decades.  The war for our freedom was largely won by those early Christian pastors who bravely led the attacks against our enemy, and often paid for that boldness with the loss of their homes, families, and even lives.

Today, it is rare for a church leader to even mention controversial issues such as abortion or homosexual marriage, for fear it might offend someone in the congregation or possibly have the ACLU attack.  The typical church today refuses to engage the culture on controversial issues and is so afraid of creating any negativity that many will not even allow a voter registration table to be set up outside their church sanctuary, let alone provide Christian voter guides.  The result of their decision not to engage the culture or provide information to their congregation when new bills and laws defy biblical truths if that both the church and culture are in decline.  Church leaders have all but lost what should be their responsibility of leading their congregations in a Godly manner in all aspects of their worldly existence.   Consider the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

Minority Judges Excoriate Obergefell v. Hodges Decision

Consider the recent Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.  The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, by the narrowest possible margin (5-4) that states must allow same-sex marriage, by claiming Kentucky’s definition of marriage was unconstitutional.  However, the Court’s decision was qualified by its assurance that religious freedom would not be jeopardized.  READ HERE: The Supreme Court’s full decision.  Did Justice Anthony Kennedy really mean what he solemnly intoned on June 26 about the protection of religious liberty?: “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection. Nevertheless, the first test case failed to provide that protection.  Kentucky’s federal judge, David Bunning, sent Kim Davis to jail for exercising her religious beliefs, when she would not sign the marriage licenses of homosexual couples.

Those who issued the minority opinion heaped criticism on the judges who had written the majority opinion for the same-sex marriage decision:

  • Chief Justice John Roberts: “Five lawyers have . . . enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”. . . “Just who do we think we are?”
  • Justice Antonin Scalla: “They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
  • Justice Clarence Thomas: “This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the t4ext, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic.”
  • Justice Samuel Alito:  “[T]he Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage.”

The opinions of the above Supreme Court Justices who opposed the majority decisions are largely based on the premise that Supreme Court cannot make low; their obligation is to interpret law.  It appears the Supreme Court has violated the main intent of our nation’s intent for the three branches of government.  They are to be as equal as possible:  a check and balance approach that would avoid one gaining too much power.  There is a valid concern that the judicial branch has grabbed too much power, creating judicial tyranny.  Dr. John Eastman, a constitutional lawyer, stated: “. . . the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch, virtually unchecked in its assertion of power and therefore a serious threat to constitutional government.”  That is a serious allegation that needs to be explored, especially in light of recent court cases.

Restoring Judicial Balance is Essential for Nation’s health and Future Success

What can be done to restore the balance of power, that important constitutional check our forefathers provided?  The answer may be to seriously consider the remedy offered by those who wrote our Constitution. Somehow, we have been misled to believe Supreme Court justices cannot be removed, except by their own resignation or death.  Yet, our forefathers did not exclude any justices from impeachment, through words they inserted to prevent “deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature.” Judicial tyranny certainly is one that needs to be excised for our nation’s health and future success.

Andy Schlafly contends we will lose future battles if we don’t act now.  “There will come a time when our right to stand in public and pronounce that we believe in God will be prohibited.  Consider the experience of Tim Tebow who has been criticized for and rejected by football teams for his statement of faith.  There are hundreds of examples of Christians who have been fired from their jobs due to their Christian beliefs.

It is too far-fetched to surmise that there may come a time when religion cannot be taken outside the doors of a church.  In rendering their minority opinion on Obergefell v. Hodges, the justices predicted what would be the outcome of sanctioning gay marriage in every state.   Here it what Justices Roberts, Thomas and cautioned and predicted:

  • Roberts:  “Today’s decision . . . creates serious questions about religious liberty.
  • Thomas:  “Numerous amici . . . have cautioned the Court that its decision here will ‘have unavoidable and wide-ranging implications for religious liberty.”
  • Alito:  “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. . .[and] exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The homosexual movement is an example of how a minority group managed to facilitate a reversal of historic public opinion, but when that elevated to the level of allowing biased judges at the Supreme Court level to exceed their authority, it is time for a very close scrutiny of what is and is not acceptable.  This has created a conversation that the time has come to reintroduce the option of impeachment for judges who ignore their oaths.

While everyone agrees we want our Country to progress, we must also be on the alert for the cavities that can destroy it.  We have grown and prospered due to the brave and brilliant who gave us our Republic and Constitution.  Have we forgotten our forefathers’ warnings?

We’re reminded of Benjamin Franklin, who upon exiting the Constitutional Convention was asked what sort of government the delegates had created.  His answer was:  “A republic, if you can keep it.”  The wise men who labored over what type of government would allow our nation to prosper knew human nature.  A healthy government is dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people.  Power corrupts and nations fall when citizens become complacent and politicians forget who and what they swore to protect.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s