Ben Carson: Impeach Justices Who Back Gay Marriage
[su_publirb]
Ben Carson wants judges removed if they favor gay marriage.
“Some people think that I hate gay people, that I’m a homophobe; I’m not,” Carson said. “Jesus Christ was not a homophobe. Jesus Christ loved everybody regardless of their lifestyle but he offered them other ways to do things. It’s a free country, people can do what they want to do, but they don’t get to change the definition of marriage, which is between one man and one woman. I’m concerned by the fact that we’re not paying attention to the Constitution the way we should.”
Carson said that Congress should exercise its “right to rein in judges who don’t abide by the will of the people,” adding that “what we the people have got to do is insist that Congress carry out their duties.”
[su_facebook]
[su_center_ad]
tracey marie April 30th, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Shut up insane theocrat, we are a secular nation of secular laws.
Larry Schmitt April 30th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Amen! (if that isn’t a teeny bit inappropriate)
Larry Schmitt April 30th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Amen! (if that isn’t a teeny bit inappropriate)
Khary A April 30th, 2015 at 3:14 pm
Ben Carson…A man who honestly makes me think that monstrous man-eating alien overlords would be preferable to any leadership he has or endorses.
Larry Schmitt April 30th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
You mean like Kang and Kodos?
Larry Schmitt April 30th, 2015 at 3:33 pm
You mean like Kang and Kodos?
Khary A April 30th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
yep at least they’ll be funny and actually civilized. at least we’ll get sprayed with rum.
Khary A April 30th, 2015 at 3:35 pm
yep at least they’ll be funny and actually civilized. at least we’ll get sprayed with rum.
frambley1 April 30th, 2015 at 9:59 pm
Kang and Kodos happen to be involved in a same sex marriage.
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 4:40 am
Actually they’re brother and sister. I don’t know which is which.
frambley1 May 3rd, 2015 at 8:27 pm
No, they aren’t. Watch the post credit scene of Simpsons-o-rama. Lrrr asks the one of them that is the wife to go comfort NdaNda, and they both go to comfort her.
Larry Schmitt May 3rd, 2015 at 8:48 pm
This is from Wiki: “Kodos’ gender has come into debate from fans. In “Treehouse of Horror VII”, Kang introduces Kodos with “This is my sister Kodos”.
frambley1 May 4th, 2015 at 10:04 pm
Interesting. Sorry for my dismissal of your earlier statement, I stand corrected. (I usually don’t comment in absolutes, but when Futurama is involved that can happen).
But I would submit that TreeHouse of Horror episodes are usually outside of the continuity of the show. And the Simpsons-o-rama episode was within the continuity of the show.
Anyways, it might be one of those things that Groening keeps ambiguous on purpose and is therefore beyond reason and/or debate.
Roctuna April 30th, 2015 at 3:26 pm
His understanding of the constitution and the role of the judiciary is fundamentally flawed. One of the primary duties of the courts is to interpret and rule on laws passed by majorities, which can be repressive, to protect minorities. The courts are designed specifically to not blindly abide by or enforce the will of the people. Geez, I learned that in Poli Sci 102. Maybe he should have broadened his horizons a bit more in college.
bpollen April 30th, 2015 at 3:29 pm
They started teaching us that info in Junior High in the numerous communities I live during those years. Unfortunately, facts get in the way of being a good Repub.
arc99 April 30th, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Strictly speaking, there is Constitutional validity in restricting the jurisdiction of the Courts. However, impeaching justices based on their lawful decisions is not in any way Constitutional.
Note the last clause here…
Article 3 section 2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
arc99 April 30th, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Brown v Board of Education was against the will of the people.
Shame on you Dr. Carson. You really should know better….
bpollen April 30th, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Trees favorite candidate shows his eminent suitability for a presidential run… straight into obscurity.
OldLefty April 30th, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Cause he LOVES the Constitution so much, he wants us to be like the 3rd world countries they love to mock.
Meanwhile, these events;
Scalia and Thomas dine with healthcare law challengers as court takes case
November 14, 2011|By James Oliphant
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare
law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a
dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court… Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC,
Also , the lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general
during the George W. Bush administration
Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones
Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the
National Federation of Independent Business.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/news/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114
.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-scalia-thomas-20111114,0,7978224.story
Justice’s wife launches ‘tea party’ group
The nonprofit run by Virginia
Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is likely to test
notions of political impartiality for the court.
March 14, 2010|By
Kathleen Hennessey
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14
Will Clarence Thomas
Recuse Himself From Obamacare Case?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/164586/will-clarence-thomas-recuse-himself-obamacare-case
Jan 20, 2011
Alito, Thomas Headlined Political Fundraisers organized by Charles Koch to coordinate political strategy, chaired By Leading Right-Wing Donor Paul Singer
A few months ago,
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and
Antonin Scalia — with corporate donors and Republican operatives. In October,
we revealed, through a document obtained
from Koch Industries, that Scalia and Thomas had attended secret
right-wing fundraisers organized by Charles Koch to coordinate political
strategy.
Jan 20, 2011
Not to mention Scalia going on the hunting trip with Cheney on Air Force 2, BEFORE hearing the case against Cheney.
THAT’S not cause for impeachment, but equal protection under the law for gays would be????
They HATE the 1st amendment.
Khary A April 30th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
Most fascists do.
OldLefty April 30th, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Dictators…
One stop shopping!
illinoisboy1977 April 30th, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Ruth Bader Ginsberg officiated a gay wedding, then heard a case about the Constitutionality of gay marriage. Conflicts of interest exist throughout the government.
OldLefty April 30th, 2015 at 4:08 pm
Have any other justices officiated strait weddings?
Do other justices have religious objections to gay marriage?
illinoisboy1977 April 30th, 2015 at 4:24 pm
I’m sure both are the case. Gay wedding is the specific issue, here. Straight wedding has 5000 years of precedent supporting it. My point was that Ginsberg officiated outside the norm, then heard a case to determine if such a thing is even permissible. I’m not condemning, just pointing out.
OldLefty April 30th, 2015 at 4:33 pm
My point is that the other justices may well be AS conflicted.
Slavery also had thousands of years supporting it as well.
illinoisboy1977 May 1st, 2015 at 1:54 pm
A fair point. And, I don’t see the big stink over the whole thing, but I DO know that the ultra-conservatives are going to make every argument against gay marriage.
OldLefty May 1st, 2015 at 2:20 pm
ultra-conservatives are going to make every argument against gay marriage.
________
That’s OK.
We’ve made every argument against THEIR positions.
Dwendt44 April 30th, 2015 at 5:01 pm
Straight weddings? Marriage has been around long before man created god(s). Both straight and same sex marriages have happened in this country (First Nations) and in Europe. Lies won’t work on this forum Iboy.
Roctuna April 30th, 2015 at 6:29 pm
Straight religious wedding ceremonies have precedent. That’s not the same as a secular marriage.
lynchie April 30th, 2015 at 6:48 pm
Well he catholic church made marriage a sacrement in 1215. Marriage was a tradition of religion and religion does not rule the world or set laws or set precedent. If one follows a religion and decides to follow the rules laid down by their religion so be it. The laws of the U.S. are not and should never be guided by religious beliefs. Here is a great read on the history of marriage.
http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article25.htm
Not until 1979 did the last American state finally repeal its “Head and
Master” law, which had given husbands the final say over many aspects of
family life. Not until 1993 did marital rape become a crime in every
state, overturning the millennia-old tradition that a wife was obligated
to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it.
Glen April 30th, 2015 at 10:10 pm
I don’t think you understand the term “conflict of interest”. RBG has no “interest” in the results of the case, she doesn’t personally benefit from gay marriage becoming legal, and the bans being upheld wouldn’t lead to her punishment or other negative effect for her.
She also (to our knowledge) hasn’t been getting benefits (money or otherwise) from people who have a vested interest in the result of the case, during the case.
To be a conflict of interest, there has to be an actual interest. RBG officiating a gay wedding is performance of a civic duty in a state where gay weddings are legal. Claiming that her officiating a gay wedding is a conflict of interest is like claiming that a justice has a conflict of interest in a healthcare law case because they’ve been to the hospital.
This is completely different from, for instance, a justice having a wife who is the head of an organisation that will benefit (or not benefit, depending on the ruling) from the results of a case. It’s different from a justice being paid large sums of money by a person or group with a vested interest in the result. And it’s different from a justice presiding over a case that has direct relevance to a close friend.
In short, your suggestion that RBG’s officiation of a gay wedding is a conflict of interest is utter nonsense.
fahvel May 1st, 2015 at 3:24 am
go study with bennie and then while trying to read you’ll be occupied and the two of you will not bother nice folks hereabouts.
illinoisboy1977 April 30th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
Unless the Justices blatantly usurp the Constitution, for example: saying that the First Amendment no longer applies in any situation, you can’t just toss them out because they interpret the Constitution differently than you do. Dr. Carson needs a refresher course in Constitutional Law.
Dwendt44 April 30th, 2015 at 4:56 pm
More like he needs a grade school course in civics.
thinkingwomanmillstone April 30th, 2015 at 7:21 pm
He needs to have his mic turned off.
rg9rts April 30th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
How stupid can you be??? Don’t like the decision impeach?? Imbecile
Dwendt44 April 30th, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Add this to his list of stupid and ignorant comments on subjects he knows nothing about.
allison1050 April 30th, 2015 at 5:18 pm
eye roll here as I pull my covers up for a quick nap.
lynchie April 30th, 2015 at 6:38 pm
Hey Ben. How come if god created everything in 6 days then he must have created gay people to. How come in the bible multiple wives are ok. Your views on anything are only yours. I suggest you keep them to yourself and let someone else wear the big boy pants because you don’t know what you are talking about. and by the way continued attacks on the President, Congress and the Supreme Court can be looked on as anarchy and I have a couple of nice brick walls picked out for your firing squad
thinkingwomanmillstone April 30th, 2015 at 7:28 pm
This man has not the first idea about the separation of powers nor the running of the US government. Every time he opens his mouth, he celebrates his ignorance.
allison1050 April 30th, 2015 at 7:46 pm
There you damn well go again with those damned details that speak the truth!
Thank you
Obewon April 30th, 2015 at 8:41 pm
Does birther Ben know he’s only laughed at as a parody satire? Easy money. Place your bets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-O5IHVhWj0
labman57 April 30th, 2015 at 8:52 pm
Carson is as clueless about the U.S. Constitution and how our government works as he is about foreign policy and world affairs.
granpa.usthai May 1st, 2015 at 2:16 am
sounds like Bennie is wanting to walk on the wild side a bit?
allison1050 May 1st, 2015 at 9:52 am
I’ve always thought that of people who spend waay too much time thinking about what’s going on in other peoples intimate lives…they want IT! ;o)
CityZen May 1st, 2015 at 9:56 am
Probably has already.
You know what they say about those that protest tooo much.
Classic latent behavior.
bpollen May 1st, 2015 at 4:53 am
Conservatives, reich-wingers, and Republicans fetishize the Constitution (It’s written by GAWD, Davy!) Yet they find so many parts of it inconvenient.
CityZen May 1st, 2015 at 9:52 am
Ben Carson should try out for the Aflack corporate mascot.
Everytime he opens his mouth I hear a distinctive “Quack”.
allison1050 May 1st, 2015 at 9:53 am
lol