Your SC is arrogant enough to believe that it has jurisdiction over the whole world and has a right to issues orders and summons to people that are not even US citizens for the supposed "crimes" that didn't occur on on it's soil. ( more than once it has issued such orders for something that happened in the other country)
And you say it couldn't issue an order and expect compliance within USA and Judge should be jailed for the contempt and didn't have legislative authority?
... Of course I don't know all the detailed local laws. Are SC ruling binding on State's or district laws or not?
The only thing the Supreme Court is granted the power to do within the Constitution is to decide whether or not a law complies with the U.S. National Constitution.
Each State has their own Constitution which defines the laws of the State and each State has their own court system that rules upon State laws and other such things.
The Supreme Court does not have the ability to rule that someone do something other than comply with the law. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the institution of Marriage. This is part of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that all powers not expressly granted to the National/Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States.
Which means that States are free to decide how they will define and issue marriage licenses according to their own laws.
Of course, back when Income Tax was established in America, it began to break down tax groups by heads of households, marital status, etc, and rates began to become independently adjusted. This has become a key component in the unconstitutional expansion of federal government authority. Since the federal government can only base its tax systems off of what is recorded by States - it attempts to use anti-discriminatory presidential acts to expand its authority into marriage, since whether or not a State issues marriage licenses has an impact on the taxes of various demographic groups.
The way the ruling should have gone is that she was forbidden by State law to issue marriage licenses to parties who did not qualify under the definition of the law. The court does not have the power to change a law. It can't then say: "well, the law should say this..." - They actually can't touch the law in that case, a separate case regarding the constitutionality of the law must be started. Then, if found that it is unconstitutional, the net effect is that all marriage licenses are suspended in the State until the legislature can write a new law establishing new guidelines.
The court can't say: "Well, homosexuals should fit in here, too" - and make it so. Only the legislature can write and approve laws.
That isn't how things are currently working in the U.S. - which is why I'm personally pro-secession and will be working to build and declare an independent nation with in the current territory of the U.S. Fixing our current system is just not possible, and a revolution will shatter this nation into a million pieces. The only route with a chance of being a net productive outcome is the declaration of a new nation under a revised Constitution that is upheld by those who understand the importance of the Rule of Law.
There are two opposing general ideologies in America, at present. You have classic European progressivism, which spawned the French Revolution, the rise of Nazi Germany, and several other notable catastrophes in human history. This group tends to assert that the people in public office must be empowered to so impose their virtues upon society. In other words - any government official in any position should be allowed to do whatever he or she feels is 'just' or 'correct.'
... so long as it complies with this year's moral or anti-moral crusade.
Then you have what is, essentially, an opposite ideology that tends to believe it is important for offices to be bound and defined according to law and are not empowered to do what they feel is right or 'just' at the time. The parties that write law are also bound by laws overseen by various interests, including the public and the member states/nations that comprise the republic. Congress doesn't get to write a law to fix something unless the Constitution has gone through a much more arduous process of being amended to grant it the power to write such a law in regards to that issue. It doesn't matter if it's unanimous support for the law in Congress and the President signs it the first thing in the morning - if the Constitution does not specifically say that Congress can write such a law, it's defunct.
But, like I said, we've been running down the path of "government can just decide to do whatever, where-ever, whenever, and however it chooses to - because it's government!"
Which is why we're about to tear the living shit out of each other in a few months.
