We see this all the time in life.
The judge who tells the defendant write the legislator.
The legislator who says blame the voters.
true then as it is today. everyone points the finger someplace else.
leaders who will not lead.
Posted on 10/06/2007 1:03:45 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Nice VxH, try but they still will NOT have SSM if Mitt is Predident!
Wow, I had not seen that video before - pretty stunning. More of a reason I’m supporting Fred. At least he seems to have been consistent over time.
“Listen. You might learn something.”
Ahem. Do you have a law degree? You are making claims unsupported by the facts and at variance with proper understanding of the law. Ed Meese advised Romney on this, and in this thread is a Harvard educated lawyer debunking these phony claims.
To argue that the Supreme Court “had no authority (under the state constitution) to change the law” on the basis of a constitutional mandate is to implicitly argue against the power of the courts to decide cases and interpret law. Check marbury v madison. No, the court has no authority to make law - they just have authority to say what the law *demands* of the govt as applied to the case, so they demanded that the other branches of Massachusetts government align the law on marriage with their view of the Constitution.
As I said, there are to solid and grounded cures for this kind of bad ruling: Impeachment and constitutional amendment (which Romney tried). There are legal avenues to mitigate (like a stay of the ruling), which Romney tried. Anything else is grandstanding and/or pipe-dreaming.
You think this can be defied? Go ahead and cite a precendent in American law or history. You can’t, not without showing how they almost universally had very bad ends for those who tried such stunts.
And that is what you propose - a stunt. Not a legimitate or true solution - as a state Amendment or Federal marriage amendment would be ... but a losing political stunt. The fact that some non-lawyer activists would be eager for Romney to fall on his sword, says nothing, they were/are desperate and such things are always ‘easier said than done’; nor is it meanginful that you are recycling MassResistance debunked hit-attacks. The Mitt-bashing Freepers were like flies on horse apples on this long ago. Multiple threads have hashed out this non-issue.
The fact is Romney tried to *LEGALLY* force a stay in the ruling. This idiotic idea that the Governor could declare his branch of government supreme and ignore a court ruling based Constitutional law is inept. Romney tried a better way:
“Press Release: Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay, April 15, 2004
Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney.
State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.
Romney said April 21 that he would not file a supportive brief or otherwise get involved in a petition brought by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. The League was attempting to persuade the Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of gay marriages until November 2006, when voters could vote on the issue. Romney said he preferred to make the case for delay himself. On April 23, Romney renewed his call for the Legislature to grant him the authority to appoint a special counsel so he could launch his own effort to persuade the court to delay gay marriages from taking effect May 17. “I call on both branches of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. . .to give me the opportunity to preserve the choice of the definition of marriage to the citizens and make sure that the hard work the Legislature went through to pass this amendment to allow the citizens to have a voice is worth something,” Romney told reporters at a press conference. “
The Roy Moore analogy is fitting, as Judge Roy Moore was eventually removed from office for misconduct over his defiance of an arguable court order; what is being asked of Romney - to presume to correct a wayward court through brute defiance - iswhat Roy Moore did. Yes, the analogy is apropos, as Romney would have surely been as mauled by the Mass. AG for overstepping bounds of executive power through such defiance, as Roy Moore was by Alabama AG for his own defiance.
Romney did what he could to vacate and stay the order, but Democrats in office, in particular the AG, did not support his efforts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
“Immediately after the vote, Romney called on AG Reilly to go before the SJC to halt the start of gay marriages on May 17, but Reilly quickly responded that he would not seek the delay, arguing that the SJC’s two rulings, in November and February, had made it clear that the court would tolerate nothing less than marriage for same-sex couples. A week earlier, on Mar. 22, Travaglini told the State House News Service that any attempt by Romney to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on the SJC’s ordered timetable would probably fail. “It is my understanding that no matter what legislative action we take, we cannot affect the issuance of licenses come the 17th of May. If the governor believes that he has the capacity or the authority to stop the issuance of licenses, then that’s a personal political decision that he can make; I don’t necessarily agree.”
Without the order being vacated, and with the AG issuing a judgment that required implementation, the best avenue open to Romney was a constitutional amendment.
“If you wish to call my arguments “nonsense” and “lunatic” I highly recommend that you brush up on your knowledge of constitutional law, because it is woefully inadequate.”
LOL. You are only further parading your ignorance. This was a Massachusetts state matter for one, and unless you’ve argued *Massachusetts* constitutional law on the powers of Governor vs AG vs lege vs courts (hint: The 50 states are not the same on such matters) you are blowing smoke up our rears. Nice try. It’s unfortunate you stoop to personal attacks simply because I refuse to believe already-debunked attacks on Romney.
You have no zeal for FMA, yet zeal for stupid, counter-productive, divisive and wrongheaded actions that will fail legally, go against rule of law, and would be a boon to the Gay Activists. You have it backwards. I suggest you get your head out of the Mitt-hate spin zone and start listening to others about what will and will not be effective in defending traditional marriage. This kind of stunt is NOT IT.
“You are absolutely right. In ANY other state where courts have ruled their marriage laws unconstitutional, the Gov’s have had a stay put on the implementation of these pseudo marriages, until an amendment could be ratified. Romney had 6 months to do both, he didn’t.”
Because the AG and the lege needed to back him up on it, but didn’t. see #63. Romney sought a stay, but AG Reilly refused to help ....
“Press Release: Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay, April 15, 2004
Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney.
State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.
“LOL. Fred’s Amendment would have prevented Romney from acting as he did. It requires the state legislature alone, with the governor’s signature, to pass such a law.”
LOL indeed. The Massachusetts State Consitution *already* has that provision, but the Mass. supreme court ran around it. Fred’s Amendment merely codifies what should already have been clear, but not clear enough to liberal judicial activist judges.
FMA on the other hand closes the door firmly on gay marriage both from judicial activism and from the perspective of putting gay marriage in one state and having it become the Las Vegas of gay marriage for other states.
I do not have time to respond to the same arguments I have already debunked. Whether I have a law degree or not is both beside the point and none of your business, nor is it relevant to the arguments I make. I do not need to burnish my credential to bolster my arguments. You may as well know that Romney is going to have to answer for what he did and for what he did not do in Massachusetts. Your personal insults will not deter me. In fact, your reasoning and knowledge of basic constitutional principles is so rudimentary that it makes me smile. It is like having a discussion on a junior high school level. Maybe you better get your “Harvard educated lawyer” to post a defense of what Romney did. I read the first one he posted, and it did not impress me, as I stated in detail earlier. Maybe he can do better next time.
BTW, if you want a precedent in history, you need look no further than Abraham Lincoln who ignored Supreme Court decisions and suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Look at Touhy v. Ragen, a 1951 Supreme Court case, which states that the Court does not have any contempt power over an executive branch official who is carrying out orders from his superior. Reason: Separation of powers. And there are many other examples. Court orders are not omnipotent, particularly when they involve separation of powers issues. You remind me of what Reagan said about liberals: “It is not that they are ignorant. it is just that they know so much that is not so.” I am not surprised that Romney never supported Reagan and disavowed him in Ted Kennedy’s presence. His father was a political foe of Reagan’s in the 1960s. I guess it runs in the family. But now he tries to wrap himself in Reagan’s mantle. Just like he is trying to wrap himself in the Pro- Marriage mantle. It won’t work.
Romney is not going to be able to run from his miserable record on this issue in Massachusetts by hiding behind the FMA. Too many people know about what he did. It will spread like wildfire on the internet. And every time one of his followers tries to tout him as pro-marriage, the issue of the marriage licenses and his role in their issuance is going to come up again. Get used to it.
WOSG -—
No sense in trying to rationalize with Romney-haters.
They are blinded.
By what, I’m not sure.
The only sure thing is their singular hatred for Romney.
Stop it, Mitt is the perfect candidate.
I have seen the light....
(I must use an /s tag on this one, for clarity)
Nice spam....
It seems you are projecting and embarrassing yourself, again. Your arguments have been debunked, not the other way around. I have not insulted you; you have insulted me and others. I am a Reagan conservative, and I believe in truth in politics, and will not let lies tear down Republicans, even if they are imperfect candidates. So quit lying about me and I’ll quit telling the truth about your smears.
Yes, the Harvard-educated lawyer David French has ably refuted this phony claim. It’s doesn’t matter whether it impresses you are not, as you are closing your mind in your quest to destroy Romney.
His key point is that the Massachusetts Supreme court had decided what the law on marriage said. To misconstrue that key fact is to miscontrue everything around this case!
You can read the entire opinion at the Massachusetts court website, but for those who lack the time—or stomach—to read the whole thing, please pay attention to this paragraph:
We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs’ constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature’s broad discretion to regulate marriage.
What does this mean? It means that the court interpreted (that’s another word for “construed”) Massachusetts law to mean that two people of the same sex could marry—and that any interpretation contrary to the court’s would violate the rights of homosexuals. In other words, the court did not order the legislature to do anything. Instead, it did what the constitution allows it to do—it interpreted the law. It did so in an improper, activist way that abandoned the obvious original intent of the Massachusetts constitution and the Massachusetts marriage laws, but it interpreted the law nonetheless.
Now, take a look at the next paragraph:
In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.
Read it again. And again. Do you see any order directed against the legislature? No? Well, that’s for a good reason. The court did not order the legislature to do anything—it merely stayed its judgement for 180 days for the legislature to take action that it deemed “appropriate.” However, since the marriage laws had already been interpreted (construed) to include same-sex marriage, the legislature did not have to take any action at all for same-sex marriage to become legal. It was already legal because of the court’s decision.
Spaghetti and Mittballs: Mix pasta with two parts pro-life and one-part expired pro-choice. For the Mittballs, mash together a hunk of shoe polish, a pile of money, and a glob of hair gel, and let sit until January 2008. Marinate in America’s moral cesspool before roasting over the Salt Lake Olympic torch. Serve with Caffeine-Free Diet Coke.
You may want to add "Dessert: green jello."
Hilarious...may I borrow it?
M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that’s right. And then when I became governor — I don’t know what’s so unusual about this, but when I became governor and when legislation was brought to my desk that dealt with life, and I sat down and I said, “Am I going to sign this? Because I personally oppose abortion. Am I going to sign this?”
And I brought in theologians. I brought in scientists, took it apart — this related to embryonic cloning. And I said, “I simply have to come down on the side of life,” and wrote an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe and said, “Look, here is why I am pro-life.”
And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps.
It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life. And the same thing happened with Henry Hyde and George Herbert Walker Bush. And so if there’s some people who can’t get over the fact that I’ve become pro-life, that’s fine. But I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I am pro-life and that I was wrong before, in my view, and that I’ve taken the right course.
See, 'round these parts we call that both fact and the truth. As one who seems to portray yourself as the keeper of the "truth", you should not fear such a post as Petronski's, since it is what Willard said, verbatim.
I think we can agree that the truth is aligned with the fact in this case....
As well as the others....
From FReeper Unmarked Package's excellent home page:
Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. Sen. John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson oppose the FMA.Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was one of "the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician."
Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary."
("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senate, June 2, 2006)Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here."
"This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad."
"I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way."
(ABC News This Week interview with Mitt Romney on Feb 18, 2007) (Mitt TV Clip)Governor Romney: "I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me."
(Romney: I am not anti-gay, Associated Press, May 24, 2007)When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney identified and enforced a little-known 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. This prevented gay couples living outside Massachusetts from flocking to MA to be married and then returning to their home states to demand the marriages be recognized, thus opening the door for nationwide same-sex marriage. Implementation of the 1913 law was contested in court by same-sex couples from outside MA, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in March, 2006 to uphold the application of the law.
(Mass. high court says nonresident gays cannot marry in state, Boston Globe, March 30, 2006)Gov. Romney provided active support for a citizen petition drive in 2005 that collected 170,000+ signatures for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage. He rallied citizens to place pressure on the Legislature for failing, through repeated delays, to fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot. Gov. Romney filed suit in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote on the issue of the amendment, or place the amendment on the ballot if the Legislature failed to act. The SJC declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on the petition in a ruling handed down on Dec. 27, 2006. The suit was successful in pressuring the Legislature to vote on the issue of the amendment. A vote was taken on January 2, 2007 and the measure passed. Through Governor Romney’s considerable efforts and leadership, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman passed a critical hurdle to get it placed on the 2008 ballot where voters in Massachusetts would have the power to restore traditional marriage in their state.
Update: Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, a proponent of gay marriage, lobbied Massachusetts lawmakers to kill the proposed constitutional amendment. In a vote of the Legislature on June 14, 2007 the amendment received 45 votes, failing to get the required 50 votes necessary to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January. Commenting on the latest vote, former Gov. Mitt Romney said, "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility."Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the court decision issued August 30, 2007 striking down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act:
(No Gay Marriage Vote for Massachusetts, Associated Press, June 14, 2007)"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people.
(ABC News This Week interview with Mitt Romney on Feb 18, 2007)Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed "An Act Protecting Religious Freedom" in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law.
(Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption, Boston Globe, March 15, 2006)Whereas Mitt Romney believes sexual orientation should not preclude joining the Boy Scouts, he supports the right of local Councils of the Boy Scouts of America to decide and enforce their policy regarding homosexuals in their organization and leadership. Romney served on the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board from 1993 to 2002.
Governor Romney responded to a question about the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and gays in the military during an NRO interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez in December, 2006:
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy in the military? Are those your positions today?Gov. Romney: "No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."
"As for military policy and the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same."
(A Primary Factor, NRO, December 14, 2006)
We see this all the time in life.
The judge who tells the defendant write the legislator.
The legislator who says blame the voters.
true then as it is today. everyone points the finger someplace else.
leaders who will not lead.
Good, we’ll have a place to put Romney’s crap....
BTW glad you called in the troops, the way things are going you are going to need each other.
WE are not worried becaues no matter what you say here Mitt will get the Nomination even Bob Novac believe that I hear him on the Mark Simone!
Hadn't heard that. Do you have more details?
Huh? That made no sense.
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.