The Bell Foundry

Rediscovering and recovering lost and endangered American liberties by studying our Founders' ideas, contemporaries, and etymology – because our united States "…are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…"

Request to File for Rehearing of OBERGEFELL V HODGES: How to Overturn the Illegal Same-Sex Marrige Ruling [SAMPLE LETTER]

According to Supreme Court Rule 44, the Ohio state officials named in the case of Obergefell v Hodges have 25 days from the original hearing to file for a rehearing: “Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.”  The justification for a rehearing would be the examples of blatant personal bias that Chief Justices Kagen and Ginsberg have shown by approving of and officiating same-sex marriages, far in advance of the hearing.

I’ve emailed three Ohio officials from the Governor’s office, and will make calls as well.  Below are some appropriate email addresses and phone numbers, and a sample letter that you can use.  I urge anyone to contact these people immediately:



Dear [Ohio official],

In May 2015, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg officiated a same-sex wedding while declaring her opinion that the U.S. Constitution vests her with such powers, even though same-sex marriage was not Federally recognized at that time. When Bader displayed such a lack of impartiality regarding gay marriage, she effectively disqualified herself from participating in any legal proceedings for any case involving the Federal legality of same-sex marriage.

Justice Elena Kagen has disqualified herself as well, having also performed a same-sex wedding ceremony in 2013.

Section 455 of the Title 28 of the United States Code insists that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” while Section 144 of the same Title provides that any judge displaying “a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party” qualifies for recusal and replacement. TheWikipedia page for “Judicial Disqualification” explains, “The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge’s expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the “extra-judicial source rule…”

I urge you, in the spirit of upholding the law, to file for a rehearing of Obergefell v. Hodges, the June 26 hearing that led to the Federal ruling in favor of same-sex marriage – the ruling that erased the will of so many States and the People of those States. A motion for such a rehearing may be submitted within 25 days of the original hearing, according to Supreme Court Rule 44: “Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.”

Thank you very much for your time and serious consideration.


Seth J. Delconte


4 comments on “Request to File for Rehearing of OBERGEFELL V HODGES: How to Overturn the Illegal Same-Sex Marrige Ruling [SAMPLE LETTER]

  1. Seth
    July 9, 2015

    I received the reply below from the Governor’s office today. I have a lot to say about this still, and am working on a response to Mr. Ward, who was good enough to take the time to personally answer my concerns:

    “Mr. Delconte –

    Thank you for your email regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving same-sex marriage. Your message has been forwarded to me for my review and response.

    As you know, it has been Governor John Kasich’s view that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. When federal judges across the nation started striking down state Defense of Marriage laws in state after state in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the Windsor case holding the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, Ohio steadfastly continued to enforce and defend its marriage laws.

    As a result, the State of Ohio was sued in federal court. After the federal judge found Ohio’s marriage laws to be unconstitutional, Ohio continued the fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals and ultimately, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In your email, you suggested that the State try to re-open the case by seeking the recusal of two of the nine justices on the basis that these two justices were pre-disposed to decide the case in favor of same-sex marriage. As I assume you are aware, before the case was decided a motion seeking the recusal of those two justices on that very basis was filed with the Court. However, the two justices in question chose not to recuse themselves. And the Court as a whole did not act on that motion before issuing its decision, effectively denying the motion.

    Thus, the issue of bias that you raised in your email was before the Court and the Court refused to act on it. In addition, it takes the votes of five justices for the Court to re-hear a case. Even if the four dissenting justices all voted to re-hear the case, it is very difficult to believe that any of the five justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage would now vote to re-hear the case. For these reasons, Attorney General DeWine has already publicly stated that he will not file the motion for a rehearing that you are requesting.

    In our constitutional system of government, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final word on what the law is. The Court has now spoken. I know you are very disappointed in the Court’s ruling and Governor Kasich shares your disappointment, but no further proceedings are available in this case after the Court’s ruling. The case is now concluded.

    Thank you again for contacting the governor’s office.

    Dave Ward
    Director of Constituent Affairs
    Office of Ohio Governor John R. Kasich

    This message and any response to it may constitute a public record and thus may be publicly available to anyone who requests it.”

  2. Seth
    July 10, 2015

    My response to Mr. Ward’s letter above:

    “Dear Mr. Ward,
    Thank you very much for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I deeply appreciate the Governor’s office standing up for Ohio’s marriage statutes. I was not aware that a motion for recusal had been brought to the court before the ruling. I very much admire the effort that has been made by the Governor’s office in this lawsuit.
    However, I strongly disagree that we must resign ourselves to the biased opinions of five unelected individuals – I do not believe that the “U.S. Supreme Court is the final word on what the law is,” in matters of unconstitutional rulings. In 1857 this same U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7 -2 vote that no one of African ancestry could legally claim U.S. citizenship, in the case of Dredd Scott v Sandford. Would you say the Court had “the final word on what the law is” in that case? Or, in the 1973 case Roe v Wade, in which another 7 – 2 vote determined that women have the “right” under a gross misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to terminate their own offspring. Would you say “the case is now concluded” in that case? I should hope not – the U.S. Supreme Court has been horridly wrong on many occasions, as they are now in the Obergefell v Hodges ruling – also a detestable result of misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s power of Judicial Review has been (most likely legitimately) inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution, in which the Court attempts to interpret the constitutionality of laws, many of our Founding Fathers strongly resisted the idea that the Court was the final arbiter of disputes and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson clearly declared that:
    “…the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself…”
    Jefferson here insisted that the Federal Government was not by any means the final authority in determining the scope of Federal powers, and that in disputes between said Government and States, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as there is no common judge between them!
    I hope you and anyone reading this letter understand that I mean no disrespect in this passionate response, but in the words of Patrick Henry, “this is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country.” Regardless of the unconstitutional precedents that have been set time and time again by the Court, it is now high time to stand up to them, and to not stop resisting Federal tyranny. Sir, I understand the pressures involved in going up against the Federal machine, but please do not relent. I again urge you to file a motion for a rehearing, no matter how unlikely success seems. If the motion is rejected again, I strongly urge the Governor’s office to take steps to nullify this unconstitutional usurpation of Ohio’s Tenth Amendment state powers by proposing State legislature to ignore the ruling.
    Again, the power to override the will of the State of Ohio and the will of its People is NOT delegated to the Federal Government by its Constitution, and the Obergefell v Hodges ruling is based on a skewed and sloppy interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    This moment may be more momentous than any of us realize.

    Sincerely on your side for liberty and the Republic,
    Seth J. Delconte”

    • David Dutton
      October 21, 2015

      By this logic any SC judges who performed heterosexual marriages or have religious beliefs against SSM should also recuse because ANY judge is FORBIDDEN to use personal or religion in their decision make process. State Supreme Court judges have lost their jobs for making rulings based on religion. The constitution protects ALL Americans from have ANY one religion imposed on them. This included Christianity. So any religion viewpoints are invalid in the courtroom

  3. Seth
    October 21, 2015

    No, it’s not the same logic, but…why do you bring up the subject of religion? I haven’t mentioned anything about religion or Christianity here. But since you brought it up…

    Your comparison is invalid, since heterosexual marriage has been the ONLY form of state-or-federally-recognized marriage since America’s inception, and has persisted that way up until a very short time ago. So, since atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious people seem to regularly partake in traditional heterosexual marriage(1), officiating a normal marriage ceremony simply cannot at this point logically be a measure of one’s religious beliefs on the subject of marriage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: