Posted on 11/25/2008 9:56:04 AM PST by goldstategop
Left to their own devices, most Americans can work these differences out in politics much as they do in their everyday lives, as untidy as these solutions may be. Unfortunately, when the courts short-circuit this process, they do three things corrosive to our politics.
First, they act as dishonest referees, imposing one set of preferences over another.
Second, they cheat the American people of an honest political contest, where candidates need to persuade the people of their views to put them into effect. Ed Whelan, a former Justice Department official who now runs the D.C.-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, notes that when moderator Gwen Ifill asked Joe Biden in the vice-presidential debate whether he and Barack Obama support gay marriage, Mr. Biden answered, "No."
"The gay-rights activists know it's not true -- or they would be protesting," says Mr. Whelan. "As supporters of liberal judicial activism, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden have the luxury of winking as the courts do their work for them. That leaves them free to pretend to public positions they do not actually hold -- and that they will subvert through their judicial appointments."
Finally, when courts usurp the role of the people, they inject cynicism and bitterness into America's body politic. In his dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue [legalized abortion] arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sore Homolosers !
The California Supreme Court is about to make history with a ruling that will be contrary to statute, constitution and popular vote, grounded soley on the doctrine of ‘Because We Say So.’
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If the CA Supreme Court rules against Prop 8 this will go to the real Supremes . . . the US Supreme Court.
It would seem that a judge, sworn by and empaneled on the California Supreme Court has no authority to overturn the document that empowers him.
How would the US Supreme Court get jurisdiction? What Federal issue would there be if the CA Supremes interpret the CA constitution "wrongly"? The only recourse is to recall justices, like they did with Rose Bird.
I don't know that answer other than to not permit a state supreme court to strike down the democratically determined will of the citizens (twice). This is not a jungle state . . . we in California must still live by the rule of the democracy, even if the Hollywood crowd is unhappy.
Sadly, since being Homosexual does not show in any particular skin coloring (i.e:they should all be color coded purple or some such hue) who is to know the sexual orientation of those judges?
Isn’t there something about a Rainbow ? ? ? . . . . .
You are generally correct. But if the portion of the document being considered contradicts the US constitution or is inconsistent with the rest of the state constitution, it his his duty to declare such a provision unconstitutional, regardless of what the voters may do in retribution.
I think Prop 8 will withstand legitimate constitutional scrutiny. If the judges on the California Supreme Court will conclude that and tell the gay activist to start their own initiative, then they will have done their job. If they elect to declare that Prop 8 is a revision of the state constitution, rather than an amendment, then they must answer why they declared in an earlier court case why they said Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision. And they need to be recalled ASAP, because that will demonstrate that they are rogue. Note that impeachment is not an option because all the democrats in the legislature will vote against any attemps at impeachment.
Another possibility is to place an amendment on the ballot setting the annual salary of the state legislators at $10.00. In the interests of fairness, this figure could be indexed for inflation.
Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
why do we go through the proper channels like we did here in Florida getting the amendment passed and they the homo’s just go out and get a judge to suit their agenda
This is B/S
afraid that they will say states have their own laws plus I believe they can’t get the case anyway
How would a case where a defendant tried to plead “religious duty” to get out of bigamy apply here? I fail to see the relevance of that case to a situation where the California Supreme Court is interpreting its own Constitution, including the procedure for amending that document.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices…So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.
Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself..."
(see also: United States v. The Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)
How ironic for these homsexual cultists like who want “separation of church and state,” that the court case they want to base their argument upon was used against the LDS church to justify the statutory regulation of marriage in the United States!
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.