Supreme Court sidesteps gay adoption case

South Florida Sun-Sentinel ^ | January 10, 2005 | Gina Holland

[mlc9852]

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by four men who challenged Florida's ban on adoption by gay couples, avoiding another contentious fight over gay rights.

[Redbob]

Here's what you do, bumboys:

You want to change a law, try to go through the legislature and get it done.

THAT's the way a republic is supposed to work, not by shopping around for activist judges!

[Blood of Tyrants]

But they know that they cannot get what they want that way, so they find judges who will invent laws and rights out of thin air.

[Publius6961]

Sidestepping is a long and respected tradition.

No decision is a decision.

What is the desired spin here?

[exnavychick]

Frankly, I must not be up enough on my checks and balances, because I have never understood how a judicial ruling (other than the Supreme Court or state Supreme Court judging a state or federal law unconstitutional) ends up making new law.

Apparently, I need to do some homework, because I only know enough about this stuff to make me mad but I can't properly articulate why.

[Congressman Billybob]

As a practitioner in the US Supreme Court I could explain how the Court violates its oath of office and the Constitution by "making new law" by some of its decisions. The bottom law is, if the Court makes new law and is not dealt with by Congress, it has done the deed.

However, more importantly, you have a terrific tagline.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest, "Lessons from Waves of Disaster"

[exnavychick]

LOL...thanks. I'm kind of fond of it, myself. :)

Thanks for answering, btw. I was beginning to think maybe I was crazy, because I always believed that Congress passed the laws, not the judicial branch. It's good to know I didn't misunderstand, but muy bad to realize that folks who should know better either don't, or don't care.

Grrrr!

Thanks again. :)