Can Judges make Law, or is it their Job to Interpret the Law?                                                             by Jack Kettler

Endeavoring to interpret laws in light of their original meaning is sometimes difficult. However, when judges depart from the written law in question and resort to judicial activism, or the making of new laws, they are in violation of Constitution.

How so?

The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it—certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.1 - President Ronald Reagan

(1) Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Swearing-In Ceremony for Anthony M. Kennedy as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 18, 1988).

In a recent landmark opinion, a divided Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide, establishing a new civil right (or a new law, while at the same time invalidating constitutional laws of many state legislators) and handing gay rights deviants a victory.

Figuratively, Kennedy is stabbing President Reagan and all Americans in the back:

In the 5-4 ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority of the four activist justices in violation his constitutional oath of office.

Consider some of the fallout over this:

“This court is not a legislature,” and “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” - Obama/care savior, justice John Roberts

We can agree that in his analysis of the court's ruling, Obama/care savior is correct in his criticism that court is acting as a legislature. Since the court has clearly overstep its constitutional boundary, the ruling is not law, and should not be treated as such. It is simply the opinion of 5 activists who wear black robes.

It is perplexing why the majority of the prominent critics of the recent court opinion, are treating this opinion like it is the law. Especially when people are being forced to violate their beliefs as in the case of the Kentucky clerk who in jail for refusing to follow the opinions of 5 activist black robe wearers, who have been elected by no one. In fact two of the activists should not even be on the court in light of the fact they were nominated by Barry Soetoro, an ineligible fraud and serial lying con-man.

For example:

GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told the Hugh Hewitt radio show that it was inappropriate for a Kentucky clerk to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government, and while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear,” she said.

Does Fiorina belief the court's ruling is law, or an opinion? Fiorina is hardly alone in going along with the latest judicial activism and saying people should submit to it. What does she propose as a remedy? Getting the republiCON leadership to do something?

Not only is Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky being consistent with her faith, she is doing what all local lesser magistrates should do, ignore UN-constitutional opinions of the court. The lesser magistrate is suppose to protect the citizens from federal government tyranny.

In agreement with Reagan and the constitution, GOP candidate Mike Huckabee said:

“Judicial review is exactly what we have lived under; we have not lived under judicial supremacy,” “The Supreme Court can’t make a law; the legislature has to make it, the executive has to sign it and enforce it. The notion that the Supreme Court comes up with a ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is to equal branches of government.”

If we agree with President Reagan's view, we must treat these actions by the court as mere opinions, and not law.

What should be done?

All lower elected magistrates should consider the Kennedy opinion, nothing more than an opinion and ignore it.

Other lower magistrates should immediately join Kim Davis and stand up for the people and protect them from federal tyranny. No doubt the state will come with a vengeance when the lower magistrates begin to protect the people from the state's “wizard of oz.”

In conclusion:

It is preposterous to believe 5 people who wear black robes can make law.

“It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.” - Rousas John Rushdoony

It is simply, idolatry to hold that the opinion of Kennedy and his fellow nut-jobs is law.

“For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.” - John Calvin (Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22)

“If they (government authorities) command anything against Him (God), let it go unesteemed. And here let us not be concerned about all the dignity which the magistrates possess.” - John Calvin (The Institution of the Christian Religion, written in 1536)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks, titled: The Religion That Started in a Hat. Available at:

Learn more why the Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law at:

Learn More: