Chris Christie Blasts Supreme Court For Striking Down DOMA: ‘Another Example Of Judicial Supremacy’

Hey, good for him. Conservatives around the country better start rallying around this guy if they ever want another GOP POTUS:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scoffed at the Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. During his regular “Ask the Governor” appearance on New Jersey 101.5 on Wednesday, Christie blasted what he characterized as the Court exercising “judicial supremacy” in overriding an act of Congress.


“I don’t think the ruling was appropriate,” Christie said of the Court’s decision to strike down DOMA. “I think it was wrong.”

Christie said that the Court’s method of ruling in this case is indicative of a problem he thinks is a prevalent feature of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He attacked the U.S. Supreme Court for substituting “their own judgment for the judgment of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.”

“I thought that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy’s opinion was, in many respects, incredibly insulting to those people, 340-some members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bill Clinton,” Christie opined.

He basically said that the only reason to pass that bill was to demean people. That’s heck of a thing to say about Bill Clinton and about the Republican Congress back in the ‘90s. And it’s just another example of judicial supremacy, rather than having the government run by the people we actually vote for.

Christie said he opposes gay marriage and has made it clear that he believes marriage exists only between a man and a woman. Christie vetoed a bill passed by the state legislature that would have made same-sex marriage legal in the Garden State, but insisted he would not object to a referendum being put to the state’s voters. 

Christie blasted the legislature for blocking a gay marriage referendum but instead supporting a public vote on a minimum wage increase. Christie accused the legislature of playing “politics” with the issue of gay marriage. 

“That’s important enough to put on the ballot. But gay marriage is not,” Christie said summarizing the legislature’s position. “That’s something the people should decide, but not whether same-sex marriage should happen in New Jersey.”

RELATED:  Michele Bachmann: DOMA, Propositon 8 Rulings 'Attacked Our Constitution'

Supreme Court Strikes Down Traditional Marriage: Another Victory For Barack Obama and His Godless, White, Liberal Agenda

It's no secret that Barack Obama's agenda as POTUS is run by Godless, rich and powerful, white liberals hellbent on destroying all tenets of Christianity. Today, their Godless agenda scored a major victory in getting swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy to side with 4 far-Left members of the Supreme Court and redefine marriage:

In a big day for gay-rights advocates, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California. 

Cheers erupted on the steps of the high court, as the rulings were handed down. The latter decision did not speak to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans in California, or in the country as a whole. The court avoided a broad ruling, and rather, determined that the defenders of California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage did not have the standing to appeal lower court rulings against the ban. 

As a result, California is likely to allow same-sex marriages to resume in a matter of weeks. Gov. Jerry Brown has already set that process in motion. 

The more sweeping decision, though, came in relation to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which the court said was unconstitutional and effectively gutted by ruling against a provision that denied benefits to legally married gay couples. 

The 5-4 ruling -- a major victory for gay-rights advocates -- means those same-sex couples would be eligible for federal benefits. President Obama, who applauded the decision, directed his administration to review "all relevant federal statutes" to comply with the ruling.  

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. 

"DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force," he wrote.

Kennedy wrote that the law "places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage." 

RELATED: The State V. God

New Poll Shows Anthony Weiner Leading in Race for New York City Mayor

I really don't get what the big deal is about Anthony Weiner possibly being the next mayor of New York City. NYC is a notoriously liberal town and before his sexting scandal, Weiner was as staunchly liberal a pol as they come. Sure, Weiner did something majorly stupid that almost ruined his political career, but unlike a certain former Democrat POTUS, he didn't repeatedly cheat on his wife and lie about it:. As long as Weiner stays true to his politics I don't see why he can't be the next mayor of NYC...tho, interestingly enough it has been awhile since liberal NYC has elected a Democrat mayor:

Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner has surged ahead of his opponents in a new NBC 4 New York/Wall Street Journal poll, transforming himself in just a few weeks from disgraced has-been to mayoral front-runner.

Weiner, who entered the race two years after resigning his congressional seat amid a sexting scandal, now leads City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the crowded Democratic primary, setting up a new phase in what could end up being a remarkable political comeback.

Weiner leads Quinn 25 percent to 20 percent among registered Democrats, the poll by Marist found. That's a flip-flop from the last survey in May, when Quinn, the longtime front-runner, led Weiner 24 percent to 19 percent.

Just as telling is the number of registered New York voters who said they might vote for Weiner. Forty-nine percent said they’d consider it, up from 40 percent two months ago, before Weiner entered the race. Those who said they wouldn’t consider voting for him dropped from 52 percent to 45 percent.

The next closest contender in the Democratic primary is former Comptroller Bill Thompson, with 13 percent of registered Democrats saying they'd vote for him, up 2 percentage points from May. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio follows with 10 percent, who dropped 2 points. Then comes current Comptroller John Liu at 8 percent, Staten Island minister Erick Salgado at 2 percent and former City Councilman Sal Albanese at 1 percent.

With potential votes spread out over so many candidates, and turnout in the Sept. 10 primary expected to be relatively low, the race remains statistically wide open. Many Democrats — 18 percent — remain undecided, and 61 percent who have a choice indicated that they weren’t firmly committed to it.

But Weiner appears to be enjoying the clearest advantage so far. His early campaigning, in which he’s portrayed himself as a middle class guy from Brooklyn, has included frequent apologies about his misdeeds.

That seems to have made him more acceptable to New York voters, said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

"The race changed when he got into the race, and he’s been able to survive returning to electoral politics, at least to this point," Miringoff said.

At the same time, Quinn, who holds the most powerful office of the candidates, has suffered an erosion of support: 57 percent of Democrats polled they had a good impression of her, down from 60 percent in May, the poll shows. Meanwhile, her negative rating has inched upward, from 26 percent in May to 29 percent now.

RELATED: Endgame: New poll shows Anthony Weiner leading in race for NYC mayor

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

Don't believe the hype. While white liberals and their messengers in the mainstream media will deem this SCOTUS decision as "RACIST!!!", the truth is that not only did "history not end in 1965", but it's the Left's own ignorance towards widespread voter fraud (all in the name of making sure blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly Democrat) that partly served as the lightning rod for this case being heard by SCOTUS in the first place:

In a landmark 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act that designated that the Act applied only to certain parts of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. 

Section 5 of the VRA dictated that state and local governments in the United States would have to get approval from the federal Department of Justice to change their election laws. Section 4 of the VRA contains the formula that determined which parts of the United States that Section 5 applies to. It was Section 4 of the VRA that the Supreme Court struck down today, which means that Section 5 will go unenforced until Congress can come up with an alternative formula for determining which governments must receive approval for election law changes. 

Notably, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion leaves the possibility that Congress can come up with a legally sound formula that would still limit the Section 5 requirements to only some parts of the United States - but that Section 4 is currently constitutionally unacceptable.

Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection pulled out the key part of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.

RELATED:  Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act