Oops. I used the wrong illustration. I'm always doing that. Understandable mistake. The correct one is below. from Andy Nowicki's essay on Alternative Right....
HERE COME DE JUDGE!
by Andy Nowicki
The original draft of a district court judge's brief declaring a ban on gay marriage "unconstitutional" in the state of Virginia contains a gaffe that is drawing hoots, hollers, sneers, and derisive guffaws from some quarters, and embarrassed silence from elsewhere.
In essence, Judge Arenda Wright Allen (pictured above) doesn't seem to know her Declaration of Independence from her Constitution from a blessed hole in the ground.
NORFOLK, Va. – The federal judge who struck down Virginia’s ban on homosexual ‘marriage’ as being unconstitutional wrongly attributed a quote from the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution.
In her 41-page decision issued late Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda Wright Allen had ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the right to due process and equal protection afforded under the U.S. Constitution.
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” Arenda Wright Allen wrote in her ruling.
While the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees “equal protection” under the law, the phrase “all men are created equal” is not in the U.S. Constitution, but rather in the Declaration of Independence.
The discrepancy was noticed by a number of judicial observers, including South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman.
Allen ultimately issued a second draft of her decision after it was reported with the adjustment: “Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that ‘all men’ are created equal.”
Allen’s ruling on the case remained unchanged, however.
The takeaway from this story is manifold. The fact that Judge Allen is the first black female judge in Virginia (appointed by President Obama, naturally) certainly highlights the already incontestable fact that affirmative action doesn't tend to lead to the promotion of the most qualified candidates. But more importantly, her prominently-displayed ignorance of the documents of the American founding throws into manifest relief the contempt our ruling class has for anything resembling actual rule of law.
Gay marriage, like abortion before it, has simply been declared mandatory by those in charge. Our betters want homo nuptials to be legalized, no matter what, and they will see to it that this dubious matrimonial innovation be fudged into existence, no matter what. They do not care (and in some cases, such as the Honorable Ms. Allen's, they might not even know) what the U.S. Constitution says about their pet projects, though they are adept at sophistry-- in finding exceptions and exemptions and "penumbras" and whatnot-- whenever the need arises.
There are of course no provisions in the Constitution forbidding gay marriage, since the signatories of the Constitution would have found the very notion so absurd as to not be worth mentioning. But conversely, there is certainly nothing forbidding the forbiddance of gay marriage in any federal or state Constitution anywhere. Yet when the power-brokers have utter impunity to re-interpret any law in any manner they see fit on any occasion, it is silly not to recognize that the deck is stacked against legal attempts to disallow gay marriage. Any law passed contrary to the whims of the "guardian" class will never be allowed to stand. The rulers will cloak their dictatorial edicts as "jurisprudence," but this is just as surely nonsense as their determination that the Constitution mandates the necessity of legalized abortion and state-sanctioned sodomic unions.
Such, of course, is the unfortunate logical consequence of Constitutional democracy itself. In such a system, it is only those in charge who get to decide what the Constitution means, and it can mean whatever they willit to mean. Even if those who drafted the U.S. Constitution had specifically put in plain terms what they surely felt with every fiber of their being (i.e., that abortion is an atrocity, and homosexual counterfeit wedlock a perverse abomination), this wouldn't even come close to stopping the present-day Constitutional usurpers in their tracks. They want what they want, and they have the power to make it so, and they're going to do it, because they can.
So what is our proper response to such blatant tyranny and brazen contempt?
There are many possible answers to this question, most of which I will not entertain here. But surely it is useful merely to laugh at them. For such characters as Judge Allen are certainly ridiculous, and plainly recognizing them as such is the first step towards breaking their spell over us. Behind their gavels, beneath their robes, our self-appointed judicial Emperors wear no clothes. How embarrassing for them!