Archive for ‘Supreme Court’

January 30, 2014

Un-Traditional Marriage

By Shell Suber

ringsWords have meaning. But often the meaning changes over time. In the 16th century, when the King James Version was translated, the word “pride” meant what selfish, self-centered, and arrogant mean today. “Pride” has evolved to mean something quite different today. This evolution in no way weakens the significance of the sin of loving one’s self more than God or others, it only means that today we must use as different words to convey what the word “pride” used to mean. No harm. It happens to words all the time. Our language grows and changes – sometimes in peculiar and unforeseen ways.

read more »

November 2, 2012

Luther’s Revolution: Democracy is Born

Contributed by Larry C. Marchant, Jr.

This Sunday, many protestant churches will recognize the Reformation of the Catholic Church. But I say everyone should stop, pause, because Martin Luther’s actions have a much larger, ripple affect, extending far beyond church doctrine.

In Europe during the 16th Century, several key events inspired Martin Luther’s revolutionary action:

1. The Pope wanted to build Saint Peter’s Basilica – the crown jewel of the Vatican. But there was one small problem. The Church was broke.

2. When the Pope approached Venetian bankers to finance is vision, they balked at the Church’s credit.

read more »

July 23, 2010

The Constitution: America’s Anchor

Contributed by Bill Connor

“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added…Every word appears to have been weighed with utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.  No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning…” Chief Justice John Marshal (Father of Judicial Review), 1840, writing majority opinion in Holmes v. Jennison (1840) on the absolute duty of Justices to strictly interpret the US Constitution.

“(The right to privacy derives from) Penumbras and emanations of the bill of rights” 1960’s era Supreme Court majority opinion establishing precedence for a “Constitutional” right to personal privacy. 

read more »

July 22, 2010

Graham no hypocrite on Kagan vote

Contributed by Shell Suber

Beginning when Democrats murdered Robert Bork’s career and reputation in cold blood before of a worldwide television audience, Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees have descended into an unseemly circus of revenge killings from one party/president to the next. “Advise & Consent” has come to mean “Search & Destroy” for whichever party is out of the White House.

Judiciary Committee members, journalists and scholars have all condemned this trend as destructive to our nation’s political health and justice system. There have been widespread cries for a return of civility and, well, manners. 

read more »

July 21, 2010

With Kagan vote, Graham shows respect for Constitution

Contributed by Warren Mowry

As predictable as the sun rising in the east or Osama bin Laden saying “Death to America” was the grousing by some over Lindsey Graham’s affirmative vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s examination of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

Let me make this clear – I would be much happier if Kagan wasn’t on the Court.  I had rather there’d be clones of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia to replace the three tired liberals already there and the one on the way, but science and Barack Obama aren’t going to allow that.  It is not, however, the province of Senator Graham to make sure leftists don’t get on the bench.  Rather, we rely on the American voters for that.  As he said in announcing his vote, elections do have consequences, and Sen. Graham’s vote was a concession to that.

read more »