“Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach.Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
The *14th Amendment Goes Both Ways Folks
The equal rights canard with regard to same sex ‘marriages’ is premised on the “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” component of the inappropriately ratified and illegal 14th Amendment.
Fact is, there is no inequality to start with. Consider that simply because marriage is between one man and one woman, it does not exclude those who are of a different sexual orientation from enjoying that same privilege, or right. They can still do so within the definition established by we the people of the state of Michigan!
Is It Possible For The State To Make This Right?
It was his courage to stand up against the formerly unimaginable wanton persecution by state agencies like the (feral) DNR and the AG’s office. IT was the support of people who were aware of what was going on that allowed him to survive, and cause the Attorney General’s office to fold under the weight of a huge, easily recognizable, mistake. It was his willingness to suffer the loss of business as the state threatened his customers, and cut off his sole income.
And all throughout this process other farms were shut down and forced to slaughter their livelihoods because they had no means to fight ‘city hall.’
At least I do. He knows it, and there are a lot of good reasons why. Of course we have disagreements on a couple of issues, and will call them out as we see them, but he has done a reasonable job of representing the state and its constitution (reasonable – not great) during his term.
But he needs to get out front on this thing.
In fact he could have done so a while back. The feral DNR issue has been a debacle from the get go, and THEN AG Schuette’s office sends out the guy in the video below. He first verbally challenges the Mark Baker directly (bypassing the attorney) in way that certainly appears threatening, pulls the I don’t really give a $Hi# attitude with the rest of the crowd, and then decides the pledge of allegiance is not for him.
A real class act.
Clearly, we dodged a bullet by not establishing a state run exchange. The AG appears to be watching for 'ricochets.'
Not unlike the camel’s nose, the exchange was a buy-in to undermine state sovereignty. Fortunately, Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette appears to be trying to make sure the mandate does NOT apply to Michigan residents. From MLive:
Attorney General Bill Schuette is arguing an IRS rule offering tax credits to individuals buying health insurance on the federal exchange from states without their own exchanges violates the U.S. Constitution.
The argument was made in a “friend of the court” brief filed in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where individuals and businesses from states without insurance exchanges are challenging the ability of the IRS to offer tax credits for buying insurance through the federally established exchange.
Schuette and the attorneys general for Kansas and Nebraska argue that allowing the IRS to offer the credits overrules the decisions not to set up exchanges under the Affordable Care Act that 34 states made and is invalid under the Tenth Amendment.
Schuette’s on the right track.
Additionally, it should be noted that this might not be the most popular move, and could be painful to his campaign in the general. As many Michiganians are expecting a federal subsidy, it may not happen or they may lose that subsidy if this action is successful.
This is a courageous and quite correct move.
Mlive is telling us that Governor Rick Snyder is asking for the ban on domestic partner same sex benefits to remain in place until properly adjudicated. They report on the activist Judge who has first tossed the ban:
The motion asks Judge David Lawson to rule in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples. The motion argues that the 2011 law banning the benefits “eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair” and promotes “financially sound” local agencies.
In June 2013, Lawson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, Public Act 297, saying the plaintiffs in the case had a good chance of proving at trial that the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.
“A good chance” is a pitiful reason to upend due process and legislate from the bench.