<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" As predictable as the rising of the sun, there has been a noisy, intemperate, and somewhat loony backlash among the True Believers concerning the Supreme Court&amp;#039;s decision to punt on marriage equality. (Just as a light aperitif of sensible comment, here&amp;#039;s the invaluable Dahlia on what may still be trapdoors in what the Nine Wise Souls did.) For example, the National Organization for Marriage went indiscriminately mad, channelling either Thomas Aquinas or Yosemite Sam. It&amp;#039;s hard to determine. But the most entertaining reactions came from totally respectable potential presidential candidate Ted Cruz, and his running buddy, Mike Lee, the konztitooshunal skolar from Utah. Both of them leaned hard on the &amp;quot;unelected judges&amp;quot; button, and Lee, who is to jurisprudence what Paul Ryan is to math, was particularly amusing. &amp;quot;Nothing in the Constitution forbids a state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman,&amp;quot; Lee said in a statement. &amp;quot;Whether to change that definition is a decision best left to the people of each state - not to unelected, politically unaccountable judges. The Supreme Court owes it to the people of those states, whose democratic choices are being invalidated, to review the question soon and reaffirm that states do have that right.&amp;quot; Well, &amp;quot;nothing in the Constitution&amp;quot; forbids a state from retaining the traditional definition of marriage as a union between two white people, either, except that pesky 14th Amendment, or so some unelected and politically unaccountable judges once ruled, anyway. It is helpful here to refer back to Lee&amp;#039;s earlier, funnier work regarding another decision rendered by unelected and politically unaccountable judges in regards to a law openly passed by the national legislature. &amp;quot;Today&amp;#039;s decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby marks an important victory for religious liberty. Americans do not shed their religious freedoms merely by going into business. The Court&amp;#039;s ruling upholds and strengthens the rights of individuals and the rule of law, while protecting the Constitution.&amp;quot; But, apparently, unelected and politically unaccountable judges can require that employees conform in their private lives to the religious whims of their employers, or they can get out. This is based on Lee&amp;#039;s strict constructionist view of the constitutional provisions regarding the right to keep and bear icky ladyparts. During an appearance on Sirius XM&amp;#039;s The Wilkow Majority, host Andrew Wilkow argued that the real question in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., was about &amp;quot;whether or not a person who runs a business should be forced to provide something that is largely for recreational behavior, if it goes against their religious beliefs.&amp;quot; Lee, responded by saying &amp;quot;Yea, that&amp;#039;s right, that&amp;#039;s right,&amp;quot; before claiming that &amp;quot;this administration is using the often coercive power of the federal government to force people into their way of being and their way of existing, their way of believing and thinking and acting.&amp;quot; At least he&amp;#039;s not talking about child labor any more. For now. In the vast universe of Not Knowing Dick, Mike Lee is the Padishah emperor. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a21713/not-everyones-happy/>