[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4428-H4430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OVERRULING THE HOUSE OF GOD
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westerman). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this week, there will be important
decisions made here on the House of Representatives' floor.
We are told, this month, the Supreme Court may well play God and
overrule what has been considered to be the house of God, as given by
Moses, for the dramatic amount of history, including up through the
President's own statement that he believed marriage was just between a
man and a woman.
When he was running for office, apparently, according to his campaign
manager or whatever he is--whatever he was--he felt he wouldn't get
elected if he said what he really believed.
Nonetheless, in 6\1/2\ years, we are told things have changed to the
point we are now in a position to overrule what Moses said, which is
that a man will leave his father and mother and a woman leave her home
and the two will come together. That would be marriage--Moses, who is
the only full-faced profile above us in the gallery, with the side
profiles of all of the great lawgivers, the greatest lawgivers as they
were thought to be years ago.
I will also note that, as I sat and listened to the Supreme Court's
entertaining arguments on whether or not Texas could keep our monument
dedicated to the Ten Commandments on our State campgrounds--and it was
joined with a case from Kentucky on whether they could keep their Ten
Commandments that were posted inside the door--and as they were arguing
about whether or not the Ten Commandments could be attributed in that
manner, I looked up on the marble wall to my right in the Supreme
Court's chambers, and there was Moses, looking down with both tablets
of the Ten Commandments, looking down--interesting, very interesting.
It is the kind of mental gymnastics that have been played in the
Supreme Court throughout its history.
We know Dred Scott was a dreadful decision, and there have been
others that were poor. Sometimes, in being human, they get them right,
and sometimes, they get them wrong; but there is one thing that is
very, very, very clear, and it is in the United States Code. It is
United States law.
It is volume 28 of the United States Code, section 455, and section
(a) is very clear: ``Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the
United States shall''--no room for question--``disqualify himself''--
that is generic, meaning mankind; it could be male or female--``in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.''
That is the law, and the only way that we can remain a nation that
believes in the rule of law is if the courts that decide whether a law
can stand or must fall abide by the laws that apply to them. If the
highest court in the United States blatantly violates the law and
especially blatantly violates the law in deciding a case, then is it
really law that they have made if they have violated the law to create
it?
In knowing that the law is very clear, a United States Supreme Court
Justice ``shall disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'' Then we must look
next to see if there are any indications of partiality on the part of
any of the Supreme Court Justices.
Here is an article that was published by foxnews.com back on
September 1, 2013, and it reads the following: ``Two months after the
Supreme Court's landmark ruling to expand Federal recognition of same-
sex marriages, striking down part of an anti-gay marriage law, Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding.
``The officiating is believed to be a first for a member of the
Nation's highest court.
``Ginsburg officiated Saturday at the marriage of Kennedy Center
President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.''
I was just out at the Kennedy Center this weekend--it may be the only
weekend; I am here in Washington all year--and was delighted to be
there. Apparently, if Michael Kaiser is still the president, he is
doing what appears to be an excellent job there.
Further down in the article, it is quoting Justice Ginsburg, and it
reads: `` `I think it will be one more statement that people who love
each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the
blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,' Ginsburg told
The Washington Post in an interview.
`` `It won't be long before there will be another' performed by a
Justice. She has another ceremony planned for September.''
The last line--it is not the last of the article--but it reads:
``Justices generally avoid taking stands on political issues.''
The rest of the article goes on: ``While hearing arguments in the
case in March, Ginsburg argued for treating marriages equally. The
rights associated with marriage are pervasive, she said.''
Anyway, it reads further down: ``Before the Court heard arguments on
the Defense of Marriage Act, Ginsburg told The New Yorker magazine in
March that she had not performed a same-sex marriage and had not been
asked. Justices do officiate at other weddings, though.
`` `I don't think anybody's asking us, because of these cases,' she
told the magazine. `No one in the gay rights movement wants to risk
having any member of the Court be criticized or asked to recuse. So I
think that's the reason no one has asked me.'
``Asked whether she would perform such a wedding in the future, she
said, `Why not?' ''
[[Page H4429]]
Apparently, the Associated Press also contributed to that report.
It doesn't sound as if it could be any more clear that Justice
Ginsburg has a very solid opinion that gay marriage, same-sex marriage,
same-sex weddings are constitutional, despite its being something that
is reserved to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment
for decisions.
On September 22 of 2014, in The Hill, written by Peter Sullivan, an
article reads: ``Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan officiated a same-
sex wedding on Sunday, a court spokeswoman told the Associated Press.
``The ceremony in Maryland for a former law clerk is the first same-
sex wedding that Kagan has performed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have both performed same-sex
weddings in the past.
``Gay marriage has been a divisive topic at the Supreme Court as it
has been elsewhere in the country.''
Further down, the article reads: ``The Court could decide as early as
this month whether to take up the issue again in the coming session,
this time to consider a more sweeping ruling declaring a right to same-
sex marriage across the country.
``Ginsburg said last week that, unless an appeals court allows a gay
marriage ban to stand, `there is no need for us to rush' on a Supreme
Court ruling.''
Clearly, Justice Kagan has made her feelings clear on same-sex
marriage. There could not be a more clear, unequivocal statement that
any just judge or Justice could ever make on the issue of same-sex
marriage than to actually perform, officiate, in a same-sex wedding.
Here is a Newsmax article from May 18, 2015, by Greg Richter:
``Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sparked speculation on
Sunday when she mentioned the Constitution while officiating a same-sex
wedding.''
Further down is a quote from Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New
York Times: ``With a sly look and special emphasis on the word
`Constitution,' Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two
men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the
United States, Dowd wrote.''
{time} 1915
Then it also says in the article, ``Nevertheless, guests applauded
loudly, Dowd said, and Ginsburg `seemed delighted.' ''
For Justice Ginsburg to state publicly that the Constitution of the
United States gives her the power to officiate and unite a same-sex
couple in marriage is an unequivocal, clear statement as to what she
believes the Supreme Court should do in their decision. If there was
ever any doubt--and there wasn't. Once she performed a same-sex
wedding, there was no question about her feelings on the matter.
An article from National Review by Edward Whelan, February 19 of this
year, the article, just a small part of it here: ``At her Supreme Court
confirmation hearing in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly explained
that the judicial obligation of impartiality required that she give `no
hints, no forecasts, no previews' about how she might `vote on
questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.' ''
As she declared in her opening statement: ``A judge sworn to decide
impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not
only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would
display disdain for the entire judicial process.'' That was Ruth Bader
Ginsburg in 1993. Apparently, she sees things a great deal differently
now.
Further down in the article, Edward Whelan writes: ``Human nature
being what it is, it's not easy for a Justice to recuse in a closely
divided case that she obviously cares passionately about. This is
exactly the situation Justice Scalia faced a dozen years ago in the
wake of his public comments criticizing a Ninth Circuit ruling against
the Pledge of Allegiance. As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote at the time,
Scalia was `intellectually honest enough to know that he slipped,' and
he thus, `recused himself from what would have been one of the most
important church-state cases of his career.' His recusal meant that
`the Court may well split 4-4 on the case, in which case the Ninth
Circuit's decision will stand for all the States in its jurisdiction.'
''
We also have a quote from Justice Sonia Sotomayor: ``I suspect even
with us giving gay rights to marry, that there's some gay people who
will choose not to, just as there's some heterosexual couples who
choose not to marry. So we are not taking anybody's liberty away.''
Justice Sotomayor has obviously stated her position very clearly on
the issue of same-sex marriage.
This is an article from May 27, 2009, Lisa Keen from the Keen News
Service. She says in an article: ``Long-time gay legal activist Paula
Ettelbrick said she met Sotomayor in about 1991 when they both served
on then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo's Advisory Committee on Fighting
Bias. `Nobody wanted to talk to . . .' '' and uses a slur for a
homosexual `` `person at that time,' said Ettelbrick, who represented
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. `She was the only one on the
advisory committee who made a point to come over and introduce herself.
She was totally interested in gay civil rights issues and supportive.'
''
Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry organization
said: ``From everything I know, Judge Sotomayor is an outstanding
choice, fair and aware, open, and judicious. I believe she has
demonstrated the commitment to principles of equal protection and
inclusion that defines a good nominee to the Supreme Court.'' Wolfson
said the President ``has made a strong and appealing nomination that
should and will receive the support of those committed to equality for
lesbians and gay men.'' The National LGBT Bar Association issued a
statement saying it was pleased with the choice, noting that it
represents ``more diversity on the bench.''
In view, actually, of her quote, it seems that she has clearly stated
her position with regard to same-sex marriage. Anyway, the article
further down said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal
Defense and Education Fund, said the organization was pleased that the
nominee is a woman of color. ``While women, people of color, and self-
identified gay people continue to be woefully underrepresented in the
Federal judiciary, Judge Sotomayor's nomination represents a step in
the right direction,'' Cathcart said.
So, anyway, if those quotes are accurate, then certainly they would
be supporting evidence of her quote that ``I suspect even with us
giving gay rights to marry . . .'' she is already stating in this quote
that she, not the Creator, not God, not almighty God, not the
Constitution--``us giving,'' obviously the Supreme Court.
So, as Jefferson pointed out, you know, he trembles for the country
when he realizes that God is just and his justice will not sleep
forever. It is not the Supreme Court that gives rights. We get our
rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, from our Creator,
and they are embodied or supposed to have been embodied in the
Constitution. And yes, it took a Civil War to ensure that the
Constitution meant what it said, and it took an ordained Christian
minister named King to push peacefully until such time as the
Constitution was more thoroughly forced to mean what it said.
We are talking about marriage here. For anyone who is a Christian,
that means they believe in Jesus Christ, they believe His teachings,
they believe He is Savior, and they would have to believe when He
quoted Moses, who said he was giving the law from God, and Jesus said:
A man shall leave his father and mother, and a woman leave her home,
and the two will become one flesh, and what God joined together, let no
one put asunder. He put His stamp: this is marriage. It approved what
Moses said was marriage, and in this Nation, throughout the Nation,
until some said we have become smarter than we have ever been, once
again defying Solomon's statement: There is nothing new under the Sun.
This is not new. We are not more enlightened than other civilizations
have been.
But if the Supreme Court in a majority decision destroys the
constitutions of numerous States across this Nation, and the majority
opinion has Justices who are violating Federal statute regarding what a
judge shall do, then it would appear that their law would be no more
valid than if someone here cast the deciding vote on legislation that
becomes law, and it is determined
[[Page H4430]]
that the deciding vote was cast by someone who was not legally a Member
of Congress. There would be reason to say that is not a valid law. It
did not pass the House of Representatives. And especially, if it turned
out that, say, 20, 30, 40 percent of those casting the majority votes
on a bill were disqualified at the time of the vote from casting a
vote, that would not be a legitimate law.
I hope, and since I believe in prayer, I pray that those Justices who
have made clear by their statements and their actions that they are
disqualified, will do the lawful thing and recuse themselves. If they
do not do that, they will be casting a ballot, casting a vote, and if
that vote is the majority decision, and if that decision overturns
massive law on marriage across the country, and by its statement says:
We know more than Moses, we know more than Jesus, we are the U.S.
Supreme Court, it certainly sounds like they will have produced an
unlawful decision of the Supreme Court. I hope they will not put this
Nation to such a constitutional crisis by violating the law to push
through their legislative agenda, but we will see. Will they start a
constitutional crisis by violating the law to push their legislative
agenda through the Court? We will see. I hope and pray that they will
follow the law and disqualify themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________