Sen. Mike Lee Blathers Hypocritically About the Supreme Court

Sen. Mike Lee is the latest conservative to offer highly disingenuous and hypocritical arguments against the Supreme Court, in anticipation of them ruling against him on marriage equality. As usual, every argument he offers applies to dozens of other cases with which he either agrees or would refuse to say he disagrees because the result would be so heinous.

“Where did the Supreme Court get the power to change the definition of marriage?” the caller asked. “And all the justices, all nine of them, even though they disagree, they all seem to think that they have the power to make that decision.”

“They don’t have that power, the Constitution didn’t give it to them,” Lee responded.

“There are a few who appear to take the position that something in the Constitution, something in the 14th Amendment in particular, gives them this power,” he said. “I strongly, strongly disagree with that viewpoint. I don’t think it does, and I think they are mistaken in that conclusion. And it think it’s wrong, I think it’s disruptive of the constitutional order for them to take a debatable matter and take it beyond debate, to take a state matter and take it to the federal government, not just to Congress, but to the Supreme Court, to a group of nine lawyers dressed in black robes who are not elected, but who are appointed for life. And I think that’s a big problem.”

So that means Loving v Virginia had to be wrong. After all, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority, according to him, to “redefine marriage” or to “take a debatable matter and take it beyond debate” or to “take a statement matter and take it to the federal government.” All of those arguments apply just as well to that case. And to Brown v Board of Education, so we would go back to legal segregation of the races as well. And to Griswold, so no more birth control.

If applied consistently, every single conservative argument would turn back the clock not just decades but more than a century. But they can’t admit that. They know they can’t apply their reasoning consistently because they know how wildly unpopular it would be if they were to say that Loving or Brown were wrongly decided. So they pretend that their arguments only apply to this case right now, not to all those other cases. Decade after decade goes by and their rhetoric remains word-for-word identical, without any recognition that it has always been wrong in the past.

"Human sacrifice?! https://uploads.disquscdn.c... :D"

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
"There are two comments in his Diqus profile, both copies of another's comment. There may ..."

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
"Don't take the brown acid, folks."

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
"No, you're talking about callousness, outright cruelty, control, and abuse of various kinds. I don't ..."

Swanson Thinks Burning Man Wants to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • pocketnerd

    That’s right, conservatives, ride this anchor all the way to the bottom. Make it clear you will not vote for any candidate in 2016 who is not publicly and loudly anti-gay. And if that means handing the White House to a Democrat, well, that’s just the price you must pay for purity. Compromise is just another word for treason!

  • frankgturner

    @ pocketnerd

    The white house and maybe congress too.

  • John Pieret

    There are a few who appear to take the position that something in the Constitution, something in the 14th Amendment in particular, gives them this power

    A few? There a whole slew of constitutional scholars who think the 14th Amendment gives them exactly that power, right here:

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The states and Federal government have bestowed many rights, privileges and responsibilities on married persons that the states are denying to LGBT. If the state and Federal governments want to continue giving married people those rights, privileges and responsibilities, they have to give all persons access to them on an equal basis.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I guess this is what happens when the Right Wing makes stupidity a virtue. Does any other nation have so many people that revel in their own stupidity, that constantly proclaim it with such vigor?

    Or is this yet another example of “American Exceptionalism”? Yea, America.

  • D. C. Sessions

    It’s a real pity that the United States doesn’t have an active Fourth Estate to ask politicians questions like that. Our Founders sadly never appreciated the importance of a free press, it seems.

  • frankgturner

    Why would they think that churches are going to be forced to do gay marraige ceremonies against their will? I am guessing that it is rhetoric. I mean yes some chur yes will do it, they CHOOSE to do it though.

  • Anna Elizabeth

    I just sent Mr. Lee an email expressing my simple thoughts on religious cults, stupidity, and being a stupid religious asshole.

    Do these dipshit Senators think they constitute some nobility class? These stupid assholes aren’t fit to pick up dog feces with their ass cheeks. How *dare* these worthless whores make pronouncements about my life, my rights, when they aren’t smart enough to pour piss out of their boot?

  • raven

    Where did the Supreme Court get the power to change the definition of marriage?” the caller asked….

    1. Mike Lee is a Mormon from Utah!!! The cult and state that practiced polygamy up to the 20th century. That still has 60,000 polygamists divided up into many warring schismatic cults.

    The LDS church still advocates polygamy. Not on earth but it is central to their afterlife. You can’t be a god with being a polygamist. In fact, our god in Kobold has a whole herd of goddess wives, our Heavenly Mothers, who are so important, no one knows their names.

    2. The LDS church still hates the federal government for making them give up polygamy. They did fight a war with the USA which they lost after all. Anti-USA feelings are still high in Utah.

    3. Where did the Mormons get the power to redefine marriage as biblical, that is to say polygamist?

    And where did the US federal government get the power to make them quit it?

  • scienceavenger

    I think it’s disruptive of the constitutional order for them to take a debatable matter and take it beyond debate, to take a state matter and take it to the federal government, not just to Congress, but to the Supreme Court, to a group of nine lawyers dressed in black robes who are not elected, but who are appointed for life. And I think that’s a big problem.”

    It sounds like he has a problem with the court per se, since what he describes is exactly what courts do – take a debatable matter and settle it. After all, a nondebateable matter doesn’t need settling.

    And what does the clothing have to do with it? Would their decisions be better if they were wearing business suits?

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zarafrankgturner, #6:

    Why would they think that churches are going to be forced to do gay marraige ceremonies against their will? I am guessing that it is rhetoric. I mean yes some chur yes will do it, they CHOOSE to do it though.

    I suspect there’s an element of market protectionism here. Reactionary churches are already hemorrhaging members, particularly those from the younger demographics. If churches that support marriage equality are doing too well, clearly marriage equality must be outlawed. It’s the Free Market at work!

  • raven

    These are rhetorical questions. I’ll answer them anyway.

    1. Q: Where did the Mormons get the power to redefine marriage as biblical, that is to say polygamist?

    A: Joseph Smith, an overaged adolescent, just make it all up. He had something like 40 wives.

    2. Q: And where did the US federal government get the power to make them quit it?

    A: This one is harder. They just did it because they could and popular opinion at the time was that polygamy didn’t fit in with the US Zeitgeist.

    Mormons have no shame. You would think they would be the last cult to have any moral authority to tell anyone anything. They are but it doesn’t stop them.

  • raven

    Why would they think that churches are going to be forced to do gay marraige ceremonies against their will? I am guessing that it is rhetoric.

    It’s not rhetoric. It’s a lie.

    I mean yes some chur yes will do it, they CHOOSE to do it though.

    They already do. A lot of Mainline Protestant xian sects have already decided to do so and filed briefs with the US Supreme court in favor of SSM.

  • garnetstar

    As raven says @8, when *didn’t* the Supreme Court have the power to define marriage? Marriage, to the US government, is nothing but a contract, entered into by the spouses and the state. It needs a judicial procedure (judicial authority is given to some clergy) to enter into it and a judicial procedure to break it.

    Courts have always defined what is legal or not in contract law. I know that religious nut cases have their own special definitions of marriage, fine, but that no bearing on federal law. A Catholic marriage, according to their church, isn’t dissolved when the legal contract is, and the world has kept right on turning, so if you prefer to view two same-sex people as not married when they legally are, fine. No one will notice.

  • raven

    Living History: Lee and Granato have ties to Mountain …

    www. sltrib. com/sltrib/home/…76/lee-meadows-mountain-david.html.csp

    Oct 15, 2010 – What do U.S. Senate candidates Mike Lee and Sam Granato have to do with the murder of 120 emigrants passing through Utah territory in 1857? … The descendants of John D. Lee forever maintain that their forebear — the only … the clan: David King Udall, a Mormon polygamist who helped settle Arizona.

    Bingo.

    1. Mike Lee has recent ancestors that were polygamists.

    2. One of them was involved in the masssacre of 120 civilians, many of them women, children and babies at Mountain Meadows during the Utah War.

    3. IIRC, John D. Lee was executed for this.

    Mountain Meadows massacre – Wikipedia, the free …

    en .wikipedia. org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

    Of the men indicted, only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law. …. and cattle were taken by the Mormons in Southern Utah, including John D. Lee. ….

    In 1877, before being executed by firing squad at Mountain Meadows on March 23, 1877, …

    4. Fuck you Mike Lee. I’ve seen weasels with more moral authority than you.

  • frankgturner

    @ pocketnerd #10

    Yeah the free market of ideas has been bad news for Xtianity. This internet thing that expands the free market is just awful for them isn’t it? My dad once said, “this email address and internet thing are stupid ideas, they will never work.” He got one in the early 2000s and he is a Catholic Deacon.

    .

    @ raven #12

    It’s not rhetoric, it’s a lie.

    Can’t it be both?

    .

    I recognize that many protestant sects choose to do it already. The point is that some seem to think that others making a choice that they don’t agree with will force them to do it too. That is kind of like saying that since the majority of citizens in my state who voted for governor voted Republican (he only won by a small majority) that I must have been forced to vote that way too. I may not have gotten who I liked but the fact that the majority of voters voted for him doesn’t mean that I did too.

  • abb3w

    It’s not the 14th Amendment that gives the courts power; that’s Article III.

    What the 14th Amendment gives is limits for states.

  • eric

    Where did the Supreme Court get the power to change the definition of marriage?”

    In this particular instance, they got it when lawyers representing four different State governments asked the high court to review lower court results they didn’t like. SCOTUS took these cases because various conservative state AGs wanted them to, asked them to.

    IOW, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  • frankgturner

    @ garnetstar #13

    What I think gets into conservatives’ head reguarding “marriage” is based on their cultural upbringing. On another post someone said something about Churches trying to “own” marriage. Well yeah, if you have only ever attended a marriage officiated by a priest or rabbi or minister and have never seen it done by a judge or a ship captain, etc, the model in your head might be that it is only a religious officiation. And in Europe the church used to be the state (no separation of church and state).

    .

    A guy actually called “The Atheist Experience” once and asked who you would get to officiate marriage if the church could not do it. He was completely unaware that anyone else could officiate other than a religious leader.

    .

    Maybe what some conservatives really need is exposure to other cultures and religions and upbringing.

  • John Pieret

    abb3w:

    It’s not the 14th Amendment that gives the courts power; that’s Article III.

    That’s quite true but Senator Numbnutz was asking a more specific question: what gives them the power ‘to change the definition of marriage.’ Generally, Article III doesn’t give SCOTUS the power to decide issues of state marriage laws. Of course, Senator Numbnutz’s question is dishonestly framed. The issue before SCOTUS is whether marriage laws or any other state laws can be applied unequally and that’s where the 14th Amendment comes in.

  • abb3w

    @19, John Pieret

    That’s quite true but Senator Numbnutz was asking a more specific question: what gives them the power ‘to change the definition of marriage.’

    So, it’s the combination of Article III giving the SCOTUS the power to resolve controversies, Amendment XIV putting restrictions on the power of the states, and the states (allegedly) acting in violation of such limits that gives them the power on that particular point.

  • John Pieret

    abb3w:

    Exactly.