Listen. You might learn something. If the state supreme Court orders taxes to be raised, does the governor send out his revenue officers to collect the money “appropriated by the Supreme Court”? How foolish would that be? It is a separation of powers issue. I do not expect you to understand it, but one coordinate branch of the government cannot usurp the functions of another. The state Supreme Court had no authority (under the state constitution) to change the law on marriage as it did (a legislative function) and to order the governor to enforce it (an executive function). Romney compliantly allowed it to do both, either through ignorance or (more likely) political opportunism, becasue it gave him an issue to promote.
When you mention Roy Moore, your ignorance shows again. What court ordered Moore to remove the ten commandments?? It was a FEDERAL court, so the issue was not one of separation of powers between equal branches of government which Romney confronted, but of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the United States Constitution. Since you obviously never heard of it, let me put it in simple terms for you: it basically provides that federal law supercedes state law. Thus, the state Supreme Court (and Roy Moore) had to follow the ruling of the federal court to remove the commandments.
Your apparent zeal for the FMA masks your slavish defense of all things Romney. He could have said there is no legislation and refused to enforce it. Even the Court recognized that it had usurped a legislative function and that its ruling was unenforceable.
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. I repeat what I said. Had Romney followed this course, which the Alliance Defense Fund and other Christian conservative groups urged upon him, “gay marriage” would never have gotten underway In Massachusetts. Mitt Romney blew it, but you continue to apologize for him, and you now have an issue to demagogue. Enough Christian activists in Massachusetts remember what he did. This is his record and he cannot run from it.
I am not optimistic that you will understand this. I can explain it to you but I can’t make you understand it.
Post #9 well said!
“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.