John Eastman Explains The Law

The Public Discourse continues to churn out worthwhile reading, including this writing by Dr. John C. Eastman on Judge Roy Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court's recent actions in regards to marriage neutering.

The US Supreme Court has set a precedent upholding the right of states to define marriage as the union of husband and wife. All federal and state judges—including those in Alabama—are bound by that precedent.

That's right. In the DOMA case and others, SCOTUS indicated federal law had to defer to state law in marriage licensing.

Our nation’s elites have convinced themselves that a judicial order by a single federal court trial judge, no matter how wrong or contrary to existing precedent, is the “law of the land” and must be followed unquestioningly.

Only when it goes in their favor.

Decisions of the lower federal courts—what the Constitution calls “inferior courts”—are not binding on the state courts. If the lower federal courts in a state interpret the Constitution in a way that conflicts with the interpretation adopted by the state courts, neither decision has binding effect on the other.

The US Supreme Court has held that “A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.” Only the Supreme Court of the United States, which sits at the pinnacle of both judicial systems, can resolve such conflicts.

Bet you didn't see that in your newspaper.

Second, it is important to note that the federal court order at issue was entered by a single federal trial court judge, who serves on the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, one of three federal district courts in Alabama. That court has jurisdiction over only thirteen of Alabama’s sixty-seven counties.

While a federal district court order declaring a state law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement can have statewide effect if there is a statewide official involved in the case before the court, that order can only bind the defendants named in the suit, their officers and agents, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with” them, as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order cannot bind people not before the court or acting in concert with them.

Under Alabama law, probate judges—who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Alabama—are judicial, not executive officers, and are entirely independent of the executive branch of government. Therefore, the order issued to the Attorney General of Alabama did not and could not bind probate judges.

Facts are so inconvenient, aren't they?

The big irony for those accusing Chief Justice Moore and his fellow justices of ignoring the allegedly binding effect of the lower federal court order is that the lower federal court itself refused to follow US Supreme Court precedent—precedent that is as binding on that lower federal court as it is on Alabama Supreme Court and Alabama county probate judges.

In 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court holding that a state’s man-woman marriage law was not unconstitutional. That decision, Baker v. Nelson, is binding on the lower courts, both federal and state, even though it was only a summary disposition.

And I'll note again that this was AFTER Loving v. Virginia, which itself did not neuter any state marriage licenses.

How many of the people (wrongly) insisting that Moore is not following the law have cheered on all of the people who violated the law in initiating brideless and groomless "marriages", such as in California, in order to get the matter back into courts?

The problem with Dr. Eastman is that he writes as though protocol, consistency, logic, & reason matter. None of those things matter in these cases. Sheer power is all that matters, and the marriage neutering crowd has gained enough power to impose its will on everyone. Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of esteeming homosexual behavior.

Homofascists Sure Like to Attack Christians and Abuse Black History

Apparently, Twitter user Lithobolos ‏@Lithobolos didn't think my longtime pen pal could handle disagreeing with me himself, so he decided to jump in with the standard homofascist marriage neutering talking points, and most recently tweeted this out, along with a picture of two men (I think they're men - I guess we're not supposed to assume these days) kissing.

Weird people like @PlayfulWalrus find the best deal of these two getting married offensive. #lgbt #tcot #uniteblue

Notice that it was not written in response form, and along with the hashtags, is an obvious plea for help from fellow fascists.


The discussion was about whether people like bakers, florists, and photographers should be forced (at gunpoint, ultimately) to either participate in an event that mocks there sincerely held convictions, one of the most enduring & widely held convictions in human history - that marriage unites a bride and groom - or be forced out of a business.


Is it really "weird" of me to support liberty over fascism? To support the First Amendment rights of business owners? The arguments I have been making are not about whether I'm personally offended. It is about freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free markets.

George Carlin, Economist?

I have no idea if George Carlin, who was often a very funny man, said this or not. It doesn't really matter. The Left circulates this, thinking it is oh-so-clever.

I am for limited, Constitutional government.  Most people would classify me as a conservative. I most certainly do not want to "give the rich more money." The rich earn their own money. What I am against is taking, by force, even more money from the rich to waste on ineffective, inefficient crap that isn't even Constitutional in the first place or out of some sense of envy.

Perhaps the quote is being circulated in reference to capital gains, which is where some rich people are making most of their money? In that case, we're talking about gains made on investments. That income isn't taxed at the same rate as wages or salary because: 1) most of the time, it was already taxed as wages or salary before it was invested in the first place; 2) it was taxed again already since corporations pay taxes; 3) we want to encourage investment; 4) when the tax rate on capital gains is raised, actual revenue collected decreases.

That is because yes, people lose their incentive to take the risk of investing in ways that will subject them to higher capital gains tax rates. Rich people have choices about what to do with their money.

Meanwhile, many poor people do lose their incentive to be productive and work to earn money if they're getting hand-outs. If someone can get food, housing, clothing, medical care, education, recreation, entertainment, transportation, fire protection, police protection, and so much more without ever working, many of people will choose not to work.

It is ridiculous to compare letting rich people keep they money they've earned (rather than taxing them even more) to increasing hand-outs to people who choose not to work or not to advance their place in life.

Also, in general, rich people and poor people do not handle money the same way, or react to money to the same way. That is why many of the rich are rich in the first place, and why many of the poor are poor in the first place. Not all, but for the most part.

If you were to take, at random, ten rich individuals and ten poor individuals and even out their net worth and liquid cash, not so long down the line from doing that, most of the formerly rich individuals would be much better off that most of the formerly poor. That is because the rich do the things they do, and the poor people do the things they do.

The Left is always looking for ways to take money from productive people who put money to good use and give it to strangers who piss it away.