Justice Anthony Kennedy and four other rogue judges imposed their personal policy preferences about so-called same sex marriage on an entire country. Now a judge in Tennessee has decided to stand up for the rule of law and against ‘judi-idiocracy.’
Tennessee Judge Jeffrey M. Atherton denied a straight couple a divorce last week. Why? Because the Supreme Court has decided that the definition of marriage, which has been a matter for states to decide for virtually the entire history of this country, is up to 5 megalomaniacs in black robes, imposing their personal policy preferences and deciding for 320 million people.
From the Washington Post:
[W]hen Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner walked into Atherton’s court in late July hoping for a quick and easy divorce, the judge apparently had other ideas.
The sexagenarian couple had married in November of 2002, according to the Times Free Press. But after 13 years together, they wanted to split, claiming straying allegiances and irreconcilable differences.
After four days of testimony including seven witnesses and 77 exhibits, however, Atherton unexpectedly ruled that he would not be granting the Bumgardners a divorce.
But it was his argument against the divorce that has made waves around the world.
After quickly running through court testimony about money trouble, a temporary restraining order and claims of infidelity, Atherton jumped into a bold legal analysis that drips with sarcasm.
“The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”
“The majority’ s opinion in Obergefell, regardless of its patronizing and condescending verbiage, is now the law of the land, accurately described by Justice Scalia as ‘a naked judicial claim to legislative— indeed, super-legislative— power,’” Atherton continued.
The Supreme Court’s decision was “troubling” because it amounted to a “judicial fiat,” Atherton argued. “… What actually appears to be the intent and (more importantly) the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to preempt state courts from addressing marriage/divorce litigation altogether.”
“Perhaps Tennessee’ s perspective concerning keystones and central institutions must submit to the perspective of those so much higher and
wiser than ourselves,” he wrote sarcastically before essentially accusing the Supreme Court of trashing Tennessee’s constitution, if not democracy itself, by legalizing gay marriage.
“To say the least, Tenn. Const. art. XI, § 18,” which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, “having been adopted by the people of the State of Tennessee in 2006 as reflecting the will, desire, public policy and law of this State, and to be applied by its judiciary, seems a bit on the incompatible side with the U.S. Supreme Court’ s ruling,” he opined. …
“Although this Court has some vague familiarity with the governmental theories of democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, fascism, theocracy, and even despotism,” he begins sarcastically, “implementation of this apparently new ‘super-federal-judicial’ form of benign and benevolent government, termed ‘krytocracy’ by some and ‘judi-idiocracy’ by others, with its iron fist and limp wrist, represents quite a challenge for a state level trial court.” (emphasis mine)
‘Judi-idiocracy.’ Precisely. I love it. That sounds A LOT like the “Idiocracy” I talk about all the time.
The Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges case represents the end of a lawless path that Justice Anthony Kennedy started down in Lawrence v. Texas.
Irony: we have Anthony Kennedy on the Court only because of another Kennedy (no relation), Reprobate/Lady Killer, and I mean that literally, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who launched a slanderous attack on the brilliant Robert Bork, who President Reagan had nominated in July 1987. Imagine how different things could have been if the Reaganites inside the White House had prevailed, and got their colleagues to fight for Bork’s nomination?