Micek PennLive/The Patriot-News Harrisburg Pa Nation Screams at John Micek - Dictatorial Newspaper Patriot News PennLive Pennsylvania, The supreme arrogance of John Micek of the Patriot News will shatter and destroy the newspaper, The Patriot News PennLive Harrisburg Pa John Micek goes Radical - Why terrorists and jihadists would agree with John Micek of the Patriot News is very simple. No words are to be published against the radical liberal progressive left, so says John Micek, the loser flaunting the power of the press he wished he had. John Micek has taken the ISIS ISIL approach, shut them up, no free press, nothing against leadership as Micek has become the ruler of the 3 day a week newspaper that nobody reads.

The supreme arrogance of John Micek of the Patriot News will shatter and destroy the newspaper,The Patriot News is a neat name, but little more.  The media midget The Patriot-News in central Pennsylvania puts a new spin on covering news and public opinion.  The reason the Patriot-News only prints and delivers the paper three days a week is that people don't read it as it only delivers advertising and little else.  The Patriot-News, sad to say, must be renamed now as the reporting is gone, the opinion is gone and the advertising of cars and minimum wage jobs is a little boring. 

Why terrorists and jihadists would agree with John Micek of the Patriot News is very simple.  Anti-Christian, Anti-American, Anti-Constitution and pro Barack Obama Progressives seem to have taken control of the Patriot News in Harrisburg Pa?  If you don't like the radical Obama or Gay Marriage, write somebody else. 

As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”

We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society.

A Pennsylvania newspaper CALLED THE PATRIOT NEWS PennLive announced that since the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of same-sex marriage, the debate is over on the subject. Kind of like the debate over abortion – which was “settled” by the Supreme Court in 1973 – is over. The debate goes on, public opinion has changed, laws restricting abortion have been passed, abortion clinics have closed, and the pro-life moment is stronger than ever.

Here’s what the editors of the Pennsylvania newspaper said in their statement about the latest Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage:

“And this news organization now crosses another threshold.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

“These unions are now the law of the land. And we would not entertain such criticisms that these unions are morally wrong or unnatural any more than we would entertain criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law."

Here's what Editorial Page Editor John Micek tweeted shortly after the ruling:

Engage in sex with someone of the same sex is not the same as a person's race, gender, or national origin. Homosexuality is a sexual behavior. Race is not a behavior.

Then the backlash came, so Mr. Micek tried to mollify his position somewhat with this Tweet:

That didn't help matters. One reader wrote, "Clearly, PennLive's policy is not to limit criticism of settled law, but rather to limit criticism of settled law that its editors like."

It didn't take long before financial reality set in (lost subscriptions to an already dying industry?) and an apology was issued:

"Saying he had been inundated with critical emails and phone calls, Micek then apologized in a column on Saturday morning -- saying they had made a 'very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion' but recognize that 'there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday's high court ruling.'"  

The idiot Micek continues to step on the Constitution as he has shown the world his socialist communist cards.  He thought he had the power to decide just like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  He already thought that he had the absolute power to shut off the peoples voice because he has a printing press and three readers. 

Actually, there are tens of millions of people who disagree with the courts decision, and no amount of rainbow-colored lighting of the White House, Niagara Falls, and the Empire State Building is going to change that.  Micek and his queer ideas can take a hike and he can more to Iran, Syria, Iraq or try Russia with Putin.

Micek does not belong in the newspaper business and it's a sure bet that thousands of people will kill their business with the Patriot News PennLive as Micek shows the insider of the Patriot News.

The Supreme Court has spoken, therefore, the debate is over. Not by a long shot.

Denny Burke writes about the initial response by PennLive/The Patriot-New: “This means that the editors will not even entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court could be wrong.

 It’s a good thing they weren’t around when Dred Scott v. Sandford [1857] or Plessy v. Ferguson [1896] were decided. On their current principles, the editors would not have tolerated any dissent to slavery and segregation.”

Was the 18th Amendment settled constitutional law when it outlawed the manufacture and sale of alcohol? There was a great deal of debate over the issue from 1919 when the 21st Amendment was ratified and 1933 when it was repealed.

Why wasn’t the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick anti-sodomy case fixed constitutional law? If it had been, there would have been no Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), a 6–3 ruling that struck down the anti-sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, “invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory.”

How about Korematsu v. United States (1944)? This Supreme Court ruling concerned the “constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of eight Roosevelt appointees sided with Roosevelt. The lone Republican appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented.”

Was it settled law not to be debated? What side would PennLive/The Patriot-News have been on? Would it have scuttled debate over the decision on its op-ed pages?

What about Buck v. Bell (1927), the infamous sterilization case written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Court ruled that “a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, ‘for the protection and health of the state’ did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. . . . The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.”

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Holmes argued:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Is this a subject that is no longer up for debate?

Micek is so wrong he would be fired but the Patriot Newspaper is really not for Patriots.  The progressive socialist paper is shrinking and will be removed from the market.  

Micek is just one little organism inside the Patriot News PennLive organization but surely, they're many more.  

Show me his articles on all the thousands of illegal aliens working in Carlisle Pennsylvania at the distribution centers?  

Write about the illegal aliens being bused from Harrisburg to Carlisle to work long hours and displace legal citizens?  

Where's the follow up story about Hershey having a temp agency supply them with cheap foreign labor to toss product inside warehouses?  

Tell the story about the giant distribution centers that has seven different languages being used inside their business and show me their green cards?  

What happened to the McDonald's story where the franchise owner brought in illegal aliens, put them up in dorms, charged them rent and worked them like slaves?

Tell the truth about labor and temporary services that gather up and bring in cheap foreign non english speaking workers to Cumberland County Pennsylvania or maybe the Church that is paid tens of thousands of dollars per month by Barack Obama to house, hide and entertain illegal aliens?  

Tell the story of schools and illegal alien children taking food, dollars and time away from citizens? 

Do you plan to write about the giant economic convulsion of healthcare under ObamaCare and all the people that have lost their jobs at local hospitals, being merged with others, insurance companies buying local hospitals?

Micek, really, get a job, take a breath, take a walk. 

Liberals only want to shut off debate when they get what they want. There’s a lesson here for Conservatives. 

Never give up. 

Also, liberals do not like dissent, and they will crush it when it raises its head.

Get ready for the battle.

A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA has announced henceforth it intends to censor certain views about marriage deemed no better than racism, sexism, anti-Semitism.

John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. Micek wrote:

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.” In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, “This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

Feeling the heat, Micek later appeared to back down just a bit, but did he? “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

The site will allow discussion of the High Court’s decision but it appears that any suggestion the result was wrongly will eventually have no place in Micek’s news outlet. And the site makes clear that even debate about the Court’s decision has a short shelf life.

Yet another clarification came later in the day. “…I think we can all recognize that there are certain forms of speech that, while Constitutionally permissible, really do nothing to advance the discussion in a civil society.” Micek then goes on to compare opposition to same-sex marriage to “hate speech” and therefore beyond the pale for PennLive/The Patriot-News editors and readers.

Brandon McGinley of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, a pro-family advocacy group, wrote at The Federalist, “…what better way to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ than for the gatekeepers of public information (despite the proliferation of the internet, legacy media still acts as a gatekeeper for a great many Americans) to filter it out?”

“The decision to censor anti-same-sex marriage opinions is an incredible genuflection to The Nine of the Supreme Court… Micek may have gone on say this was about giving no quarter to bigotry, but the direct working is clear: They are excluding certain opinions because those opinions conflict with the Supreme Court,” said McGinley.

Micek did not respond immediately to a series of questions about the editorial move.

Scalia's Dissent: 

This Court Is A 

Threat To American Democracy

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an un-elected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Now, we have media midgets like John Micek declare that he is the lord of the media and the liberty to speak freely inside the Patriot News is now closed.  One can only imagine what the founding fathers would have thought of John Micek of the Patriot News as John Micek doesn't understand that he was not elected either and the customers of the Patriot news will simply boycott the paper and walk away.  

As always, despite of people like John Micek of the Patriot News PennLive and Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Bill De Blasio, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, the impeached Bill Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, Black Panthers, Holder, Lynch, Biden, Pelosi, Van Jones and even progressive liberal junkie Governor Wolf the people will speak from every corner, without the Patriot News or their online PennLive.

No words are to be published against the radical liberal progressive left, if you're against gay marriage,  so says John Micek, the media loser flaunting the power of the press he wished he had. 

The Patriot News is losing market quickly and with the help of Micek you can bet that the bottom will drop out.  Most understand that the Patriot News PennLive is at most an effort to be a newspaper but Micek went over the cliff, taking the future of the Patriot News PennLive with him.

John Micek has taken the ISIS ISIL approach, shut them up, no free press, nothing against leadership as Micek has become the ruler of the 3 day a week newspaper that nobody reads. 

Micek wrote:

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same sex marriage.” In a Tweet later in the day, Micek doubled down, “This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic letters. To that we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

John L. Micek, editorial page editor and formerly state capital reporter, made the announcement shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its imposition of gay marriage on the county. 

We're very lucky to have the right to boycott the Patriot News PennLive and shut them down and close their gates.  Free speech is what Mr. Micek fears the most.  Surely in the Obama economy he can find another job that allows him to shut people up.

It's clear that Pennlive, the on-line version of the nothing Patriot-News never really covered the news or the public opinion.  If you want to argue with the Barack Obama progressive socialist administration you'll have to read and write another newspaper.

.

Scalia's Dissent: This Court Is A 'Threat To American Democracy'

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

In his fiery dissent to the monumental same-sex marriage ruling issued Friday that legalizes gay marriage in all fifty states, Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the Supreme Court has become a "threat to American democracy."

"I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," he declared in the first line of his dissent. Though he said that the particular substance of  the ruling is "not of immense personally importance" to him, it raises an issue of "overwhelming importance": "who it is that rules me." Accusing the other justices of "constitutional revision," Scalia said the decision ultimately "robs"the people of the "freedom to govern themselves":

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create "liberties" that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Scalia goes on to argue that the debate surrounding same-sex marriage demonstrated American democracy at its best, but the court had stepped in and "put a stop to it," overriding the people's voices by the smallest of majorities:

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work. 

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its "reasoned judgment," thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

Blasting his colleagues' "naked judicial claim" to "super-legislative" power, Scalia highlights the undemocratic nature of the "strikingly unrepresentative" Supreme Court:

A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine un-elected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. 

Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. 

Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. 

Not a single South westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). 

Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. 

The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. 

But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Scalia also rips the "pretentious" and "egotistic" style of the majority opinion, describing it as containing "silly extravagances" and "showy profundities" that are ultimately "profoundly incoherent."

..
..

Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov disappeared from public view in early May, 1984 after he had begun a hunger strike to get permission for his wife, Yelena Bonner, to travel to the U.S. for heart surgery.

 In the Soviet paradise, just like in America today, the new American that the Patriot News John L. Micek is fighting for, you're not really allowed to enjoy your Constitutional rights unless your given permission.

Through the words of wanting one’s anti-Soviet wife to live, and, worse still, to be saved by evil capitalist surgeons and not by the holy surgeons of the Soviet utopia, was, clearly, an exercise in abnormal psychology.  

Like millions of Micek thinkers, just shut them all up and then we win, it's the Barack Obama utopia of gay marriage, climate doom, imported oil, bank scandals, Islamic jihadists, illegal aliens hiding in Pennsylvania, rampant crime in Philadelphia and the streets of downtown Harrisburg Pennsylvania, the capitol. 

Sakharov was undoubtedly “mentally ill.” and that's what Micek thinks about public opinion if they happen to be against gay marriage. 

No wonder, therefore, that Soviet authorities forcibly confined him in a closed ward of the Semashko Hospital in Gorky, where he was force-fed and given drugs to alter his state of mind. This is how the Soviet Union shuts you up, maybe a government hospital deep in the woods could cure the people that don't want gay marriage.  Maybe they could line a few people up and make an example of them, just like ISIS and ISIL will do today?

This is how Soviet authorities believed they would get the Soviet dissident to not only stop caring about his wife, but to also make a public recantation about his abnormal anti-Soviet views – a gambit in which they ultimately failed.

I dare you not to bake a queer cake!  I dare you.

The Soviet system had a long and cruel record of perverting psychiatry to abuse political dissidents. Labelling many thought-criminals ”insane,” the communist regime institutionalized them under horrifying conditions in mental hospitals and force-fed them dangerous and mind-shattering drugs.  Barack Obama does the same thing by using Welfare, ObamaCare, Food Stamps, Free Phones, Section Eight Housing and discounted free bus rides.  The welfare drug always works, at least for a while.  

But Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton must have people like the Patriot New's John L. Micek to fight the street battles against the peoples voice.  It takes tens of thousands of little people like John L Micek of the Patriot News to shut people off, turn the valve closed on public opinion to force people into ignorance and compliance. 

Dissidents such as Pyotr Grigorenko, Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Vladimir Bukovsky and Natalya Gorbanevskaya were among the brave heroes who did not elude this grotesque form of Soviet barbarity.  Now a new America and a savage progressive barbarity is closing around your free speech.  The supreme court broke every promise found with the U.S. Constitution and you were given ObamaCare and now this grotesque Gay Marriage mandate against all the people. 

Grigorenko was forcibly committed to a special psychiatric hospital for criticizing the Khrushchev regime. What will happen to people around Harrisburg PA when they speak out against Micek, will they be removed?

Brodksy was sent to mental hospitals for not writing the right kind of poetry; his treatments involved “tranquilizing” injections, sleep deprivation and forced freezing baths. 

Esenin-Volpin was institutionalized in the Leningrad Special Psychiatric Hospital for his anti-Soviet thoughts. Bukovsky was also confined to the same psychiatric hospital for “anti-Soviet agitation.” Gorbanevskaya was committed to a psychiatric hospital for, among other “abnormality” crimes, attending the 1968 Red Square demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

And now enter the leftist totalitarians of the Obama stripe. While anti-Soviet ideas caused dissidents to be confined to psychiatric institutions in the Soviet Union, the soil is now being fertilized for the same process in the American leftist land of Alinskyite hope and change. 

The radicals can have the Patriot News and PennLive but they cannot have our voice, our churches or our children.  They can hide illegal aliens in Mechanicsburg Pa and hire thousands of illegal aliens in the warehouses, fulfillment centers and distribution centers but they cannot keep us quiet.

Indeed, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy consoled leftists worldwide this past Tuesday, engaging in Soviet-style labeling vis-à-vis global warming dissidents that would have made Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov proud. 

Addressing an audience at a White House summit, she stated that “normal people,” and not climate skeptics, would win the debate on global warming. This is the exact same thing that Micek is trying to pull. 

She made the comment in the context of why the EPA had issued a recent report on global warming’s negative impacts on public health, stressing that, “It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

The contention that global warming skeptics are not “normal people” is, of course, a normal sentiment coming from a leftist. 

The Left, as the history of the Soviet regime and other communist regimes has well revealed, breathes it oxygen by labeling. 

The opponents of the messianic utopian cause are always “evil” and/or “mentally deranged” to one extent or another. And these labels are very effective in demonizing and dehumanizing dissidents — especially when the labels have that little inconvenient limitation of not having any relationship to the actual facts. 

There is enough evidence to suggest, after all, that man-made global warming is the myth that the skeptics say it is. A strong presentation of the facts by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield on this score can be found here and here.

There is enough evidence to suggest that the Patriot News should fire Micek before the sun goes down because the sun is going down on America. 

 Gina McCarthy’s totalitarian attitude toward global warming skeptics parallels, of course, the Soviet mindset that forced Soviet dissidents into psychiatric hospitals and to be force-fed drugs. McCarthy and her superiors in the Obama administration do not, at this point, have the power to put the skeptics they are labeling into asylums, and the Patriot News cannot shut us up, and to be administered “tranquilizing” injections and immersed into ice baths, but it is clear from their own words what their desires are – and what path they are clearing for the brave new world.

The spheres of powerlessness and dehumanization being built by the Gina McCarthys of the Obama administration, to which dissidents and the opponents of “hope and change” are being banished, are somewhat of a personal issue for this writer. 

Yuri Glazov, was a scholar at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and a professor at Moscow State University who became a “skeptic” about the Soviet paradise in which he lived. He attended human rights demonstrations in Moscow on behalf of political prisoners and signed letters of protest against Soviet political repressions. For not being “normal” in this particular regard, he was fired from his work and received a labor card with a special secret code that meant that he was blacklisted and could not receive employment anywhere in the country. The activities he had engaged in could land a Soviet citizen in the gulag or a psychiatric hospital for decades. But we were the lucky ones. The ones who got away.

The family never forgot, obviously, those who we left behind — and Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Esenin-Volpin, Vladimir Bukovsky and Natalya Gorbanevskaya were and are among our friends, and the torment they endured for not being “normal” remains etched in history and in our hearts, and we gauge very clearly the pernicious ideological seeds that spawned their persecution and suffering.

Millions escaped Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Asad and their totalitarian hell to come to a free country to now face, in the most tragic and bizarre sense, the ideological cousins of our tormentors. The Supreme Court of the United States of America. 

The Left and its totalitarian gate-keepers are now in solid power here, slowly but surely building the prison walls and “psychiatric” spaces designed for the treatment of abnormal skeptics. Gina McCarthy and her ilk must be called out for exactly who they are — and for what they are intending to do. The unimaginable cruelties that Andrei Sakharov endured in the Semashko Hospital in Gorky in the mid-1980s must never be forgotten and must never leave our hearts, for they are the dividing lines in the battle between good and evil, despite the labels that try to camouflage the truth.

.
.

And finally we have the out-of-control ruling released today in the Obergefell v. Hodges case that imposes same-sex marriage on the entire country. As Justice Antonin Scalia has warned in his eloquent dissent, democracy itself is at stake.  Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts got it right today, when he says that the opinion by the liberals on the Court has nothing to do with the Constitution.  Here is my statement:

Today's decision shows that the Supreme Court can be a danger to our republican form of government. The opinion authored by Justice Kennedy is not constitutional, is unmoored from law and precedent - and is invalid. The exercise of raw judicial power by five justices should be resisted under law and overturned. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan abused their public offices and acted contrary to their oaths of office by assuming the power to legislate their progressive views on homosexual marriage from the bench. The personal advocacy for homosexual causes by justices in the majority has also cast an ethical cloud over this decision. This decision will lead to frontal assaults, led by the Obama administration, on a right which actually is in the Constitution, the right to freely exercise one's religion. I fear this judicial coup will lead to social unrest, the jailing of religious leaders, and other outrages against those Americans who shared the views of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and all of Western civilization on traditional marriage. This is a terrible, terrible day for our nation

.

“The Supreme Court has become a Supreme Legislature. They have not only rewritten the laws of the 50 United States, but have redefined a sacred and ancient institution. 

The Framers provided only two means of amending the Constitution: an amendment must be proposed through either a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the states, and either must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states. 

They did not authorize judges to amend the Constitution. Five judges have neither the moral nor legal authority to decide for themselves that the heritage which gave birth to our nation should be supplanted with their own fleeting views of contemporary events.

It is not an act of courage but supreme arrogance to pretend that the wisdom of five judges is greater than all the men and women who have voted upon this issue in the 50 states, and the men and women whose convictions have defined the course of western civilization. 

The civilization we flourish in today did not spring out of nothing: it was carved out of the wilderness by families and communities knitted together by their faith and traditions, and set upon a foundation stretching back thousands of years.

When a society begins to strike its shared faith and traditions from every place of respect, a new faith always takes its place. Where the family is not the center of American life, government is. Today’s ruling is part of a continuing effort to secularize, by force and intimidation, a society that would not exist but for the faith which inspired people to sail across unknown waters and trek across unknown frontiers.

Justice Scalia was sadly but fully correct when he wrote that: “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court… This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Such action must end. All who seek high office—whether legislative or executive—must pledge to curtail these abuses and support only the nomination of those who will do the same. The American people are losing the power to control those who seek to control them.

In a single week we have seen the Congress surrender its legislative authority through fast-track, we have seen the Court rewrite the dictionary to protect Obamacare, and we have seen unelected judges rewrite the Constitution in order to impose the will of five on 300 million.

But whether these progressive victories are transient, or permanent, depends on us.”