Posted on 12/27/2006 10:22:25 AM PST by SmithL
Oy gevalt Andy,
Mass. and NY are just alike. They elect the same old schmegeges. Now, as you know we have Pataki (who though GOP is no bargain)--going for president. A state that can elect Barney Frank, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerrey is very pathetic. I have no idea what their local politicians are like. BTW Happy New Year
On the lighter side, the automatic payraise that the voters put through in a ballot question will proceed over Gov. Romney's attempt to stop it.
Look at the Gay Marraige decision this way. The SJC ruled that it cannot compel the General Court to act upon something that is enumerated in the state constitution, but can compel it to act upon something that isn't. This is Bizaaro World,
Happy New Year to you as well, Dave - Zei Gusund!
Our courts have hijacked this nation and right of the People to make and live by their own laws!!
I expect Mary-land to follow exactly the same.
Right, so they can imperiously instruct the legislature to legislate same sex marriage, but they can't tell the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment when they are required by law to do so...
"Barney Frank, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerrey ... have no idea what their local politicians are like."
These horrible miscreants are the best MA has to offer? yikes ... the also rans in the bunch must make your head spin.
#8 puts the nail on the head. Gay marriage is now the law in Mass because the voters didnt do what their patriot forefathers did and do a riot and boston-tea-party thing on the legislators who stymied this. The Democrat-media complex is strong in these places, and a RINO-ized Republican party only can put up token opposition.
When the GOP gets weak and the conservatives get scarce, the state goes socialist.
Families with Children. Time to leave MA.
I'll get it later if you don't!
Grrr - Nazguls.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Yeah, that was just amazing. Suddenly, the imperial court does not have the authority to order the other branches around.
All of which begs the question: In the absence of any court authority to compel him to, why did Mitt Romney order local officials to issue homosexual wedding licenses and perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? Why does he not simply revoke his executive order now?
Romney simply did not have the courage to defy the Mass Sup Court, and really, its hard to fault him for that. Just about every American now alive has been firmly indoctrinated into the idea of judicial supremacy, and any suggestion that the Courts are not properly the final authority will be met with claims that our system of law and order would collapse otherwise, and with references to the Brown decision, which apparently gives the courts cover to do whatever they want.
I don't know the workings of the Mass constitutional framework, but if its like the US Constitution, then Romney would likely have been removed from office by the Democratic legislature had he defied the Court. Such a defiance -- whether or not it would have led to his impeachment -- would have rightly made Romney a hero with the social conservative base, but it would also have made him exceedingly easy for the media to demonize as someone who would plunge the nation into a Constitutional crisis should he become President and do the same thing with the US Supreme Court. And as I said earlier, the idea of judicial supremacy is so entrenched that it probably didn't even occur to Romney that he might defy his black-robed masters.
I consider the possibility of a US President pulling an Andrew Jackson and defying the courts to be remote, and that's unfortunate because I think the only real way to end judicial supremacy is for such a challenge to be made, and to be made successfully. Such a challence could come in several way; perhaps some conservative governor in some conservative state would be willing to defy his state's supreme court, or better yet, maybe some state would refuse to obey some future outrage from the US Sup Court. Then, ideally, the President and Congress would go along with the state, or states, and then there really wouldn't be much the Court could do about it.
But this is a pipe dream, and is likely to never happen. That means we are left with much less certain ways to combat judicial activism. One way is to finally achieve a conservative majority on the Sup Court, and then hold it long enough for Constitutional jurisprudence to return to fealty to the actual Constitution. Sadly, the record of Republican presidents in picking good judges is a poor one. For every Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Rehnquist, or Alito, there is an O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, or Stevens. To the current President Bush's credit, he has apparently not screwed up as his father and Reagan did, but who knows what we'll now get if Stevens retires now that the Dems control the Senate. Part of me just doesn't believe that Bush will be willing to fight it out for another conservative, and will instead acquiesce to some O'Connor-type pick.
Of course, if we did finally get a conservative court, and we held it indefinitely, then the issue of judicial supremacy would be moot, as such a Court would reliably restrain itself. The problem for those who don't believe in judicial supremacy on principle would still exist, though, because the idea of supremacy would still persist, and would only be held in check as long as the Court remained conservative.
"All of which begs the question: In the absence of any court authority to compel him to, why did Mitt Romney order local officials to issue homosexual wedding licenses and perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? Why does he not simply revoke his executive order now?"
Good question. I hope this comes up in one of the primary debates and he gives us the real reason. The SJC ordered the legislature to change the law (which they failed to do). Why he stepped into it so fast, I don't know. In any case, he only has a week or so left as governor.
As to screwing up on judicial appointments, GWBush was saved from himself by conservative activists re: Harriet Myers.
How could the legislature which failed to act in response to the court's order impeach the governor for failing to act?
They were either both equally compelled, or equally not compelled.
Well, if the Legislative branch sided with the Executive in any defiance of a court decision (or if it were simply too divided to take action against the Executive), then there would be very little recourse for the Court.
Or it could be the case that its the Legislative branch that decides to take the leap and defy the Court, which would then leave the Executive with a choice. If the Executive sided with the Court, then the Legislative branch would have options, like cutting off funding for example.
But anyway, to answer you question, the reason I can imagine a legislature impeaching a governor is because (a) the idea of judicial supremacy has taken such hold that many probably (incorrectly) believe that defying a court decision is an impeachable offense; and (b) it may suit the purposes and agend of a particular legislature. As a whole, the Mass legislature probably supports gay marriage and the court decision imposing it on their state, but even in such a liberal state they would not have been willing to take the plunge and redefine marriage themselves. But the court gave them cover, and did the Left's dirty work for them, so they can pass the buck onto the judges, and at the same time treat their decisions as if they were handed down from the Almighty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.