Chief Justice John Roberts has shown his true colors with the Supreme Court’s last two rulings.

In upholding the ACA and dissenting against the natural right to marriage, Roberts clearly does not believe the Constitution presumes liberty. He instead believes (and it appears so do most if not all his colleagues) unfettered government power and constrained liberty is granted by the Constitution. The Constitution apparently supersedes that which it presumes–the natural rights of free people.

As Roberts says:

If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

For shame, John. For shame!

And shame on you too Justice Scalia. From CBSDC:

‘Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves,’ Scalia wrote.

“Self-governance” does not mean the a license for imposition against one’s fellows. If the term “self-governance” means anything worthwhile, it is the right of the individual to live free from the fetters of an unchosen authority and the whims of his neighbors.

But Scalia finds our freedom to be discreet rather than voluminous, as he says with hubris and over-educated imbecility:

Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? 

Really, Justice Scalia? Really? My intimate moments, my spiritual moments do not flow forth from the font of my liberty? Where would you suggest they come from? From your employer perhaps? Or maybe our “founders?” Or possibly “democracy” which is just another word for government control?

No, Mr. Scalia, my, your, anyone’s rights are as plentiful as the stars and just as natural. We are all literally made of stardust. It appears you simply lack the imagination to understand this. You are too much on earth. You seemed to have confused your power, your process, with freedom.

And with stunning idiocy and irony Justice Thomas had this to say about the natural right to marriage being recognized by the court. From National Journal:

Further, the long-standing legal understanding of liberty does not encompass the rights the majority opinion says it does, Thomas argues. Liberty has ‘long been understood as individual freedom from government action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.’

‘Whether we define ‘liberty’ as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it,’ he continued. ‘Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships.’

Really Justice Thomas, marriage is a “government entitlement?”

All this should just be a reminder that the “conservatives” on the court are often enemies to freedom even if they all the while claim they are freedom’s stalwart friends.

If the Supreme Court is to have any semblance of serving justice, the role of the court should be to uphold the Constitution and the natural liberty it presumes, a presumption this man made document relied upon to come into existence in the first place.

It should NOT be the role of the court to interpret the Constitution for the sake of “governing” powers when natural liberty is at stake. The whole point of the Constitution was to constrain the government, not to empower the government to curtail freedom. Not even through “democratic” means.

If the choice is between government power and natural liberty, we must side with liberty. If we do not, the USA will lose any just claim to being exceptional and will be just another fit of power and control as wrongfully practiced by herds of people throughout history.

But that may already be the case. After all, “the herd” is alive and well today. And it is hardly exceptional.