Corpus Christi Caller-Times. July 1, 2015.
Court’s rulings aren’t ‘lawless;’ they’re the law
Since when did the law of the land become “lawless”? Since never, that’s when.
Yet, repetitively, disturbingly, people in positions of real power and influence have described the U.S. Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decisions legalizing same-sex marriage and affirming the legality of Affordable Care Act subsidies as “lawless” acts perpetrated by “five unelected lawyers.”
Sure, these people in high places are entitled to express their opinion - note: that’s opinion singular, not plural because the same words are being said as if memorized from the same script.
But this is not mere rhetoric. The rest of America can’t just dismiss these people with a wave of the hand and a “consider the source” because, well, consider the sources - Sen. Ted Cruz
, Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton and two dissenting members of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.
All occupy positions powerful enough that their words carry more than meaning. By calling the lawful court’s lawful decisions lawless, as did Cruz and Paxton, they encourage and enable disrespect and lawless disregard of law.
And by dismissing the Supreme Court majority as five appointed lawyers, Abbott, Roberts and Scalia undermine the authority of an entire branch of government that is our protection from the other two. Which is more frightening, a five-lawyer majority of the Supreme Court or those other two branches?
Think seriously before answering. And while pondering, consider that the court also just ruled, 5-4, against the Environmental Protection Agency’s new power plant emissions standards opposed by Texas and 22 other states. Abbott and Paxton were only too happy to see five lawyers take down the executive branch on that one.
Regarding the same-sex marriage ruling, Abbott went so far as to issue a directive to state agencies to protect “religious liberties” at the expense of gay couples seeking to wed. The governor thus used the word “liberty” to try to deny liberty, which we find strikingly similar to Cruz and Paxton’s ironic misuse of “lawless.”
Paxton followed up with an opinion that public servants could refuse to grant marriage licenses or preside over wedding ceremonies based on their religious objections. How far might this frighteningly elastic new concept of religious liberty be stretched? Shall government services - they are, after all, government and not religious services - be denied to uncircumcised men? To unveiled women?
If that sounded like a joke, it wasn’t meant as one. It was meant only to point out the lawless joke being made of religious freedom by those seeking to use it to obstruct the Supreme Court.
Children who are raised right are raised to respect and abide by the law. The God-fearing among us take it a step further and raise children to believe in and love God. Calling the law lawless and twisting religious belief into nothing more than a weapon to attack a law - and to attack the people the law was meant to protect - undermines what we teach our children. Adults in positions of authority are leading by bad example - showing children how to disrespect and violate the laws they don’t like, to dismiss the people and institutions that make those laws, and to view religion cynically as a strategic tool rather than a system of faith.
One of these adults in authority, Paxton, is an actual lawbreaker who nevertheless was elected to be Texas’ chief lawyer. Paxton violated the law requiring him to disclose that he was an agent receiving commissions for investments he recommended. He has dismissed as a technicality this fundamental breach of honesty. What respect does this elected lawyer’s authority deserve? Certainly less than the five unelected lawyers who stands accused of lawlessness by this lawbreaker.
There’s a difference between criticizing and obstructing the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court - a perilous difference.
